Researchers always try to gain high H index .It is demotivate unpopular topics .
For me, the individual quality of a paper is much more important than a formal statistical index of the journal in which it is published or the citations it achieved. Often there are other reasons for large numbers of citations than quality, although statistically quality and citations are correlated. It seems to me that this hunt for high journal indexes and high citation rates is doing damage to science. Bibliometrical methods were developed to evaluate research, not individual researchers. See also these discussions:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Petition_Stop_Tracking_Science/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Your_opinion_about_the_following_link/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_about_scientific_production_evaluation_indices_such_as_those_of_Hirsch_h_or_Google_Scholar_i10_or_others/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Research_Publications_Impact_factor_H-Index_I-Index_Is_these_words_becoming_root_cause_for_stress_nowadays_rather_than_Passionate/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_bibliometric_studies_get_so_much_attention_in_todays_world_of_academia/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_impacts_researchers_can_create_beyond_citations_and_how_to_create_them/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_role_of_H_index_and_cite_score_in_academic_Promotion/1
Just like the impact factor, the H index was originally created as a service for researchers and has turned on them because both are now used as primitive indicators to assess the quality of their work and may even be consulted by reviewers for employment decisions.
An intention to "demotivate unpopular topics" was not originally behind it, but of course the assessment by these indices encourages researchers to jump on hype trains - or, if funding agencies make their decisions from them, even forces them to do so.
Interestingly, even the providers of these numbers don't encourage this rating system. Clarivate Analytics, who provide the "official numbers", write: "The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a journal-level metric calculated from data indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. It should be used with careful attention to the many factors that influence citation rates, such as the volume of publication and citations characteristics of the subject area and type of journal. The Journal Impact Factor can complement expert opinion and informed peer review. In the case of academic evaluation for tenure, it is inappropriate to use a journal-level metric as a proxy measure for individual researchers, institutions, or articles."
Yes it has been a successful indicator to destroy all pillars of science! Who can calculate or even estimate the damages of this so called science productivity indicator to all the human? I think no one. Jorge E. Hirsch (@Jorge-Hirsch-2) who first proposed this so called metric, index, parameter or what so ever it is, must be ashamed of it!
Level by level awareness that the "real" science community of the world of academia is reaching about this index, leads me to this thought that he has booked his room in one of the future editions of a book like the title below.
The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, 2004, 9780151008773
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Botany
- Pharmaceutical Botany
- Plant Extracts