when you want to publish a research paper in journals you have to take in consideration all these criteria such as peer-reviewed (blind peer review especially), Scopus/care, high impact factor, then in case of public speaking why there will not be any criteria? Like minimum eligibility to give a speech in front of the public???

Hello Miloud Chakit

My opinion is that the h-index (and other rigid numerical metrics) are actually a lot less helpful than I think. Some of the best papers I ever read were by people who I had never heard of and the article was published in a journal i had not hear of previously (and just happened to find via Pubmed). Conversely, some papers written (or co-authored) by famous people in journals very highly regarded (with high IF); they were TERRIBLE!

Hi,

In my opinion your research should have use case, But today's world is looking H index as a criteria of good researcher which can be extrapolated by many ways.

Dear Miloud Chakit Have a look at the highly related question here on RG https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_scientific_impact_of_a_paper_How_can_it_be_measured_How_can_researchers_be_assessed_properly

Especially the recent find by https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ljubomir-Jacic is interesting https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20221014071213444 The article in the newsletter entitled “Assessment of scientists needs to go beyond bibliometrics” gives a brief overview of the history of how scientific publishing evolved but also discusses possible new ideas on how to evaluate good research (without an emphasis on impact factor, H-index etc.).

Best regards.

Thank you for your answers. I think about it, interested people (researcher, editors… ) start seeing Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and ResearchGate-like platforms. There you can observe the progress of many unknown researchers compared to other known and popular.

The point that Joseph C Lee make is very good one. Let me expand the discussion point contrary to discussion mentioned by Rob Keller which is advocating the opposite. The acceptance by the field and genuinely make good advances to and for science are totally separate issues. The fact that someone is working in a famous university does not mean that he/she a good researcher but that that person know how to impress people in that group. For example, who write papers which violate first and second laws thermodynamics in their papers fish locomotion and they are the establishment (see for example G. L from Harvard) . This means that they over 20k citations etc while many of their papers are garbage. Or people like @Sandip Ghosal from northwestern who have thousands of citations but plagiarize academic work. The same can be said about many works in added mass, ship stability, die casting etc.

These are examples and I am sure that there are more. These evidence show that hi index equate to acceptance by the establishment and quality work can be judge somewhere later. It some cases there are overlapping.

To be a good researcher most important criteria is the ability to put good question by self on a

research problem and to design a procedure to work out for solution.

Some of the replies to https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whom_do_you_mean_as_a_researcher/1 may be of interest to you.

I think the passion, curiosity, ability to learn from other and collaborate with others define the scientist quality more than scores.

The scores (Impact factor, H-index; RG score) are certainly important but are not enough itself to define the level of a scientist since those depends a lot from the context eg:

- Scientist those are working in a famous lab, whit a lot of resources have more probability to obtain great results respect others that for several reasons do not has the same opportunity.

- Scientist working in private sector may not publish a lot but it does not mean that are not good;

- Impact and citation of a paper depends. also from the scientific area of the sector. (e.g. in the last years who work with covid has more probability to publish in high impact or obtain many citation than who are working in other disease areas) but this do not define the quality of the single researcher.

I would add a high level of critical thinking. To be a good researcher requires assuming that it is possible that one can be wrong in their conclusions. Thus, being humble helps to achieve that. That is, of course, extremely difficult to measure objectively.

A good researcher must have an analytical mind; able to stay calm; curious; intelligent; sympathetic … etc

I believe that citations constitute a good indication of a good scholar....

Dear Miloud Chakit

Being a good researcher involves a combination of various factors that go beyond quantitative metrics. While metrics such as the number of publications, citations, h-index, and i-index can provide some quantitative insights, they do not fully capture the essence of a good researcher. Here are key criteria and qualities that contribute to being a successful and effective researcher:

While metrics like Scopus publications, h-index, and citations can be indicators of research impact, they should be considered alongside these qualitative aspects for a more comprehensive evaluation of a researcher's contribution to the field. Additionally, different academic disciplines may prioritize different criteria, so it's essential to be aware of the norms within your specific field.

Sincerely