ArticlePloS one2021
The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Hotspots and Trends of Peripheral Nerve Injuries Based on Web of Science From 2017 to 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Maximizing the Impact of Your Academic Scholarship: Strategies for Early Career Professionals.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Review
- The core-pivotal index: a geometry-first approach to academic impact.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- The art of sharing: From research to outreach in the social media era.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating characteristics and academic influence of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons' Charles S. Neer award-winning research studies.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Observational
- Author ordering and citation-based measures of scholarly impact: Implications for research assessment.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025Article
- Article
- Academic productivity and industry trends of fellowship-trained U.S. academic rhinologists.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Italy's excellence in research.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2025Article
- The increasing authorship trend in neuroscience: A scientometric analysis across 11 countries.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2024Article
- Underrepresented minority faculty in the USA face a double standard in promotion and tenure decisions.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Analysis of the citation impact of Brazilian researchers in oral pathology and oral medicine over two decades.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2024Article
- Key actors in behavioral health services availability and accessibility research: a scoping review bibliometric analysis.Discover mental health · 2024Article
- Utilizing a composite citation index for evaluating clinical ophthalmology research: insights into gender, nationality, and self-citation among top ophthalmology researchers.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Beyond the h-index: Unveiling nuances and demanding rigor in academic metrics.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Academic productivity correlates with industry earnings in foot and ankle fellowship programs in the United States: A retrospective analysis.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
- The H-index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication impact of experimental scientists.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- The h-Index: Understanding its predictors, significance, and criticism.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of individual scientists is commonly quantified using citation-based measures. The most common such measure is the h-index. A scientist's h-index affects hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and thus shapes the progress of science. Here we report a large-scale study of scientometric measures, analyzing millions of articles and hundreds of millions of citations across four scientific fields and two data platforms. We find that the correlation of the h-index with awards that indicate recognition by the scientific community has substantially declined. These trends are associated with changing authorship patterns. We show that these declines can be mitigated by fractional allocation of citations among authors, which has been discussed in the literature but not implemented at scale. We find that a fractional analogue of the h-index outperforms other measures as a correlate and predictor of scientific awards. Our results suggest that the use of the h-index in ranking scientists should be reconsidered, and that fractional allocation measures such as h-frac provide more robust alternatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.