Hi

Please see this link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_I_can_find_a_list_of_very_famous_professors_in_my_topic_with_H_index

Dear @sundar, I think that one should keep the story of h-index and impact factors aside and work hard on his research projects; I think that just thinking of improving these indexes just for themselves as values will not lead to any improvement in researcher's reputation and impact.

Dear Sundar, I would say that one should keep on working hard and with all sincerity. I like what Lord Krishna says in Geeta: Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana; Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani (You have the right to perform your actions, but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions; Do not let the fruit be the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your duty). I am of firm belief that reward will follow  if we do our duty, may be late. 

Of course, we should do our best to improve the quality of our researches. But, at the same time, why not to work towards the Google Citation Index  or any other index because these indices are important parameters to develop reputation in academia.

I think both cases are important and go hand in hand. If you work very hard on your researches then you will publish good works that are citable and then the H-index will be affected positively. It is unfortunate that everything these days now depend on this so called H-index, RG-score citations and so on.

Dear Kamal, your answer is the briefest and the best. Keep it up!

Dear All,

As many put it, the answer is simple: to write a lot of good papers. I would add to write and not to have them written.

As h-index depends on the number of papers you publish and the number of times these are cited (e.g. if you have 5 papers and each will get at least 5 citations, your index will be 5), you should publish more, but to get cited more, you should publish them in better journals. Also, methodology papers and literature overview papers usually will get more citations, so you can focus more on these. In addition, writing more with co-authors will help: then you can publish more, and also, as they will also cite your work, your h-index will increase.

By publishing good research in a good journals. All the best.

Dear Debi - thanks for your kind advice - especially "Karma Yoga" quote from Srimad Bhagavad Gita. Best wishes, Sundar

In the words of our good friend Roland:

" It is a process, not a "quantum jump". "

Valuable advice - I got the point. Thanks, Sundar

I asked this question not just for myself, but many researchers face this question, when they face a committee or appraisal meeting or for considerations of editor etc. One of the questions we get is this : "What is your h-index in Scopus?"

I am glad that the answers received for this query are great. As Roland pointed out, it is not a quantum jump, and a gradual process. Publishing in good journals give us more visibility and hopefully good citations. Best wishes, Sundar

Dear colleagues,

I believe that the words of Professor Debi S. Saini are very wise! I fully support his thinking and hardly I could speak better!

H scores are neither wisdom indicators nor research accomplishments.... It is related to ELSEVIER....

But none of those scales bring in researchers as close as RG does. ...............

for I feel, RG score is the best indicator....

The H-index measures the maximum number of papers N that you have, all of which have N citations. Therefore, the more number of researches and the more number of citation you have, the higher your H-index will be.

The exclusion of conference proceedings papers is a particular problem for scholars in computer science, where conference proceedings are considered an important part of the literature (Bertrand et al, 2009).

There is always a lag in the citations of scholarly work. Therefore, the two things that improve the h-index for a particular scholar is time and effort.

This is really very interesting. I have also been thinking about this H-index thing. All the points raised are very important. Good and impactful publications will definitely attract citation and thereby improve one's H-index.

The issue of good publications is very good but sometimes I wonder about what is good publication? Some people see this just simply by the impact factor of the journal the work is published and so if IF is not high (or no IF), they will not cite the work and and then there is no H-index. Also, there are good journals that because of one reason or the other, they are not indexed by Scopus and Scopus do not recognized the citations of this its own papers on those journals. Then the H-index may be the through representation of a paper citation.

If a researcher has a good number of publications and of which "x" have been cited at least one time, then your h-index is "x" .

• The actual number of publications
• The  #citations
• #publications
• #impact factor of the journal per publication.
• Impact through invited and keynote lectures, documentaries etc. are more relevant

https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/p.m.a.sloot//index_files/Page861.htm

What exactly is a good h-index?

It seems that in order to improve an h-index there needs to be some agreement on what represents a good h-index, a poor h-index and a fair h-index. 

Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

I do not think there is a yard-stick to measure what is a good or bad h-index. The higher your score is the better but no one would say it is a bad h-index. Also, it is based on your years of publications. Someone with h-index 10 may be rated higher (I do not mean 'good') compare to the person with 20 h-index simply because the number of years of publications are far apart. To get h-index, you need citations and to get citation you also need time for people to read and make use of your work in their own research.

I think I am able to say something to give you clue on your question, Reginald L. Bell.

Dear friends:

When my papers go into "anonymous review", sometimes the Reviewers may request a group of papers - with names, titles, and full publication info and request me to add the papers as references. As author, I used to follow the review comments, and included those references and artificially created a need to cite them also.

Later on, when I was reviewing papers for an Elsevier journal, it occurred to me that the authors of a particular paper have not cited some papers on a relevant topic, and I requested them to cite some latest papers published on that topic. Suddenly, I got a flash! I recalled the requests I received as review comments with instructions to include some references with names, titles, and full publication info of some papers . As a fan of Sherlock Holmes, I made a probable guess of who the anonymous reviewers might me.

With regards, Sundar

Hi

Please see this link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_I_can_find_a_list_of_very_famous_professors_in_my_topic_with_H_index

Though its entirely dependent on publication and active participation is also plays a significant role on it.

Please take a look at this useful RG link.

Article H-index and How to Improve it?

Just publish paper has novelty and new finding

In details please