We often hear about the h-index negative effect. But how is it really used for assessing researchers? And is it really used to rank people and give advancement?
Ok, it should be done like this. But can we? I mean do we have the necessary elements to judge about who done what in a paper? And if so, how to handle this during an assessment process?
But for instance in the French system we tend to consider that if one of your PhD student publishes a paper and you are second author this paper is as important for you as if you were first author....