It seems incredible but it’s still this way, journals are the best indicators of research quality according to our latest survey. Researchers believe that Google Scholar (H-Index) is still unreliable, and no university or research center is looking or demanding it seriously; it also adds pressure on scientists, which makes them compete with themselves in a too transparent way and sometimes unfair, since appointments are often much higher in science. What do you think?
http://howtopublishinjournals.com/2013/11/11/poll-results-on-quality-of-research-journals-3-2-h-index/
It is neither journal nor any any index better indicator of quality of one's research, it is in fact your achievement to which extent one takes beyond solution of a problem are what you have noticed which others have not. It doe not matter whether one refers to your contribution or not, it is a common practice now a days that the original contribution is rarely mentioned. However, one will dig deep and come out with the result that so and so made breakthrough. In the present culture of research publication, journals and some type of its impact factor or other index to get job, to me, however, the inner satisfaction of the contribution that counts most, if the person can defend one's research.
In principle, you can get a high Google Scholar h-index if you only publish in working papers (e.g. 10 such papers a year) and always cite your own work; with such a list of publications, it is not possible to get a good job in a good university: they are more interested in where you can publish: if you manage to get published in journals with a high impact factor (top journals in your area), then you have a better chance even if your h-index is not very high yet (in case of younger scholars).
It is neither journal nor any any index better indicator of quality of one's research, it is in fact your achievement to which extent one takes beyond solution of a problem are what you have noticed which others have not. It doe not matter whether one refers to your contribution or not, it is a common practice now a days that the original contribution is rarely mentioned. However, one will dig deep and come out with the result that so and so made breakthrough. In the present culture of research publication, journals and some type of its impact factor or other index to get job, to me, however, the inner satisfaction of the contribution that counts most, if the person can defend one's research.
Researchers' quality of research has to do with both the journals published and the citations they received. So, a "better" researcher needs to does a good job with both. I think to "estimate" a researcher's impact, one need to check H-index provided by Scopus and ISI Web of Science as well which are better than that of Google Scholar. Google Scholar's attempt goes to count almost all citations received from the "web" which obviously may not be a "real" influence of a researcher on his/her academic field.
I agree with Mohammad Firoz Khan that neither h-index nor publishing in highly rated journals is a measure of quality of a researcher. Publishing in my view is more of an art than science and those who have mastered it get them both easily. Google Scholar as said by Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi is not exactly the right measure as it counts almost all the citation without taking into account the self citation and citation by others.
Dear Rafael Hernandez Barros, No standard bench mark can be defined for quality of research. About the h-index which maps the citation strength not the quality of research. If SCOPUS is standard then there should not be any charges for publishing. In general researchers are satisfied with Google Scholar citation which picks and add for any researcher. And there are on and on for last example what about IEEEXplore can we say 'a bench mark'. Why not to think? In future RG may a bench mark who knows.
I believe that journals are a better index than H index, because H index is given to only those who are engaged in online research. I know many, who do fantastic work but are not , in any way , involved with any judging parameters.
Dear Maxim Kotsemir, while I do not doubt Google Scholar, and h-index but considering them the only measure to judge a quality of a researcher. I find that there should be some measure to discount self citations by Google, because that may reflect in a higher h-index. I also agree with you that Scopus and Web of Science are also not perfect in the sense that their coverage is quite limited after all, But there is a need of devising a foolproof measure.
Dear Dr. Devang J. Pandya, I agree with your views. We are bound to go to that process of poll to make our recherche results visible. For any system full transparency and perfection is quite impossible.
Each approach to quantify the research quality has its advantages and drawbacks, obviously. If there existed one and the only ideal index, there would be no others around.
Moreover, I am not 100% sure there is an ultimate need for such absolute index. Each researcher is at the first place a human individual. The research done is individual as well. We cannot try to seriously compare oranges and chocolate, or Beethoven and Scorpions - basing on the sales per person per year, correct? However, this is the state of matter that the research efficiency indexes are being taken into account more and more widely. In some cases this can give some info, in other situations this is just silly.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Articles