Scopus H index and the number of publications with IF

If we accept the definition in Frascati Manual: "Researchers are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the management of the projects concerned.", your proposed scheme seems to address only fundamental research.

The European Framework for Research Careers adopted 2011 intended to make research career structures generally comparable across employment sectors and countries. Framework describes four broad profiles:

First Stage Researcher (up to the point of PhD)

Recognized Researcher (PhD holders or equivalent who are not yet fully independent)

Established Researcher (researchers who have developed a level of independence.)

Leading Researcher (researchers leading their research area or field).

The Framework identifies both necessary and desirable characteristics, which could be applicable across a wide range of careers, including those in higher education, the private and public sectors. https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/towards_a_european_framework_for_research_careers_final.pdf

how much his nation benefited from his work

Thank you prof Florian for sharing your point of view. Very interesting.

Scopus H index and the number of publications with IF

h index

The index h of the researcher

Personally, h-index, because it is not a static value, and measures both the productivity and impact of the researcher 's career.

Its interaction with the world around him (scientific, etc.) that is to be at the service of other

Dear Abderrahim,

I agree with you regarding the humanistic dimension and volunteer profile on mostly of us. But the question was specific and the replay needEd to be quantitative a measureable.

Dear Gema,

In science, there is no doubt that any parameter is to be measured and I totally agree with you and my colleagues that it is h-index. But as the only evaluation index is insufficient, this evaluation will not always be reliable. At least we must think of seeing the problem of evaluation from another angle.

Respectful greetings

I think you will enjoy with this assay: In The Burnout Society (Byung-Chul Han). The author leads the contemporary German Existentialism movement. He claims there is an excess of positivity that works against to us. Lots of positive messages in mugs, t-shirts, Instagram... For insantance: “Follow your dreams, work hard and there will not be boundaries...”. And if you do not reach your dream? And... if you never ever publish 2 manuscripts in Q1 journals/year that means that you are a loser? If you do not hold that scientific production rate in spite of doing your best, you are supposed to feel a sense of futility? Medicine is such a human and beautiful discipline, a vocation and a service to the others ... that we should reflect and leave the “bonfire of vanity” in which we have unwittingly gotten ourselves.

Please try to publish your papers in a highly-reputed journal in your research area even if it takes a longer time in making it success. The highly-reputed journal does not necessarily mean a journal with a high JIF. Please first consider the reputation of the journal in the field. Many publications with low, various profile journals do not actually give the selection committee a good impression on your grant application.

Carlos Chagas Filho once said: " at university, it is taught becouse it is researched". Considering his thoughts, I believe that in order to evaluate a researcher, it is necessary to go beyond the number of articles published or impact factors and h-index, it is also necessary to consider the transmitted knowledge, whether in the form of classes, lectures or supervising. In science, teaching and researching always should go together.

Thank you fellows.

The amount and social relevance of their scientific production.