Some evidence can be extracted from the answers to the RG question "What is a good H index for a Professor in Biology compared to a Professor of Psychology?"

http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_good_H_index_for_a_Professor_in_Biology_compared_to_a_Professor_of_Psychology

In his original 2005 paper introducing H-index (http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569 ) Hirsch claims that (in physics) for faculty at major research universities, "h ≈ 12 might be a typical value for advancement to tenure (associate professor)" and "h ≈ 18 might be a typical value for advancement to full professor."

EDIT: the link to the Hirsch article is now fixed.

Thank you, Artur. I see there is a lot of relevant information on the question page you pointed out. The link to the PNAS article didn't work, but a search produced two articles in PNAS by Hirsch, the original paper from 2005 and another from 2007:

http://www.pnas.org/search?author1=J.+E.+Hirsch&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

Dear David, Thank you for the two articles for J.E. Hirsch which are very useful. Hirsch claims were for Physics, and I believe that the value for advancement to tenure in Humanities or other domains should be different.

I think you are right, Mahfuz. It seems to me that the h-index and impact factor scores tend to be much lower in the humanities, somewhat lower in the social sciences, and generally higher in the natural sciences, but this is just an impression. As for regions, I suspect that the game was designed with a bias toward the U. S. academic model, where for-profit businesses have a greater role to play than in other regions (e. g. Latin America), but again this is just an impression, since I haven't looked deeply into this matter. I am hoping this question will elicit some real-life cases that can be contrasted with these impressionistic hypotheses.

Dear Mahfuz and David, that's right, indeed!

I have done a tiny empirical researh, thus: since google scholar is a pubic source, I' ve searched there for various names of friends and colleagues from different disciplines. (Nearly we all are therein).

Well, in fact, the h-index is as a rule higher for people from physics and the like than for those coming from, say, anthropology or sociology. - And yes: the model suits perfectly the U.S. academics.

The value of the h-index will indeed vary by field. The reasons for this difference are based on a number of factors. First, the number of scholars in the field. More scholars means more opportunities for citation and hence higher h-indices. For example, management science has about 3x the number of scholars in Information systems, so the average h-index for each scholar in MS would of course be higher than in IS. Second, the citation culture of the field plays a role. In the hard sciences, they tend to have many more people on papers than in the social sciences, so more counts for an individual citation. What gets cited is a factor. In cultures where citation is de rigeur then there will be higher citations than where citation requirements are looser. These three factors will indeed make the average h-index to vary by field. 

So there won't be a "passing grade." Also, at this time, h-index is only beginning to be looked at by P&T committees and it is more of a curiosity than a requirement at this time. 

Thank you, Michael, for a great overview from your vantage point. Each piece of the puzzle helps us to see the overall picture!

I believe that the h-index varies even in the same field. For instance, in the same field of parasitology, researchers in malaria have more advantages compared to Schistosome. So we are conducting a case study to demonstrate how to evaluate a scientist.

That is very interesting, Huy, and it highlights the danger of using this index as an indicator of the quality of the research published by  ascientist.

The H-index varies among disciplines and depends on the field's citation dynamics. H-index of 40 is considered to be a very good one and H-index of 60 and above is in the level of excellence. I did not realize that university authorities are considering the H-index for promotions. I know a professor , a Nobel Prize winner ,with H-index of 22. There are other criteria for hiring and promoting  researchers in the academia.

Thank you, Avishag. I didn't mean to imply that the H-index is the only factor, or the main one. In a meeting this year, where competing research projects were being evaluated, a committee member pulled out his mobile device to check the citation index of an applicant, using Google Scholar. I haven't served on a hiring committee for several years, but I imagine that such situations are becoming increasingly common. In my opinion there are more effective ways of evaluating the strength of a researcher and his or her project. The problem is that it is much faster and easier to look up an H-index or other superficial data on the Internet. One possible result of this trend is that cynical game players may be valued more highly than authentic scientists, at least at first glance.

Yes, it's true that a single number can not and should not to be used without any consideration, but in lack of a conceivable indicator and complexity of research project some indicators have been accepted. it should be noted that more science indicators are very good correlated with any criteria that exist such as peer review. all efforts in Scientometrics is to improve these indicators.

I also think that evaluating researchers by their H-Index, and especially through the Google Scholar, is not the correct way to evaluate scientists. The GS is citing a lot of material that is not scientific or academic, and it is a non-selective search engine. The H-Index itself as a measurement tool is problematic, and many articles were written on this subject. Measuring the H-Index through the Science Citation Index Expanded is more accurate than measuring it through the GS. 

Dear Avishag:

You say that "The H-index varies among disciplines and depends on the field's citation dynamics. H-index of 40 is considered to be a very good one and H-index of 60 and above is in the level of excellence."

The ratings of 40 and  >60  are considered "very good" and "in the level of excellence" in what disciplines or fields, and by what individuals, groups, organizations or institutions? Can you provide specifics concerning the three variables mentioned in my initial question?

How does one determine if a publication is "scientific or academic"? What are the most important criteria for inclusion or exclusion across all disciplines? In what way does Google Scholar fail to follow these criteria, and how does the Science Citation Index Expanded meet them?

Finally: Can you provide references to what you consider the most important articles that deal with the H-Index?

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

As far as I know, there is no difference among disciplines  in the calculation of the H-Index. Nevertheless, the social sciences usually receive a lower H-index than the life and the exact sciences. Mathematics is an exception to this rule, since its citation dynamics is slower than for most exact sciences. As to another question on how one determines if a publication is scientific or academic,, at least for journals, if a journal is refereed and is being cited, then it is scientific. There is a large database , a periodical guide, that categorizes journals as being scientific or professional, the Ulrich'sGlobe (free on the net). As to the published articles about the H-Index, they are attached to this documents. As to the three variables mentioned in the original question I think that the results of calculating the H-Index will vary among disciplines, institutions and regions, but it seems useful to remember that this indicator was designed initially to observe researchers'  personal achievements and excellence, and less so for institutions or regions.

Thank you for a very informative, post, Avishag. The list of articles will be especially useful.

Dear Avishag:

I have one final question, if you don't mind my persistence.

A Google search failed to turn up a web site for "Ulrich'sGlobe" (although your post of three hours ago appeared among the results!). I did find this:

http://www.proquest.com/products-services/Ulrichsweb.html

but it is apparently only available by subscription.

Do you have a link to the database you mentioned?

Hi Davis,

Here is the link. It should be free on the net.

http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/

regards

Dr. Avishag Gordon

Thanks again, Avishag, although it looks from this end like I would need some sort of institutional subscription to get in.

I send my best wishes for a happy and fruitful new year to all who have contributed to this thread.

David

Dear David, my best wishes for you, your family and your intellectual adventures in this New Year! Thank you very much for your question. I did appreciate it!

Gracias por tus palabras, Carlos. Siempre es un placer leerte.

Apreciado David, recibe un fuerte abrazo! No es seguro, pero parece que este ñaño iré a Guadalajara, por una invitación. Muchas felicidades este año nuevo y siempre!

Muy estimado Carlos: De Guadalajara, Guanajuato está a cuatro horas en autobús. Es un lugar hermoso, Patrimonio de la Humanidad por la UNESCO. ¡Avísame si tienes ganas de explorar!

Ah, de mil amores!Ya te contaré. Un abrazo grande!

A happy new year to all .

When  his (h10-index) exceed the h -index,  may be ! 

A good article with hard data relevant for psychologists can be found here http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/september-13/citation-based-indices-of-scholarly-impact-databases-and-norms.html

Nice percentile tables facilitate interpretation in determining your overall impact in psychology, although considerable variance may be found among sub-disciplines (e.g., neuro vs social).

For actual index values, WoS might be construed as a lower bound and Google Scholar (which can be used with Harzing's PoP) an upper bound. I say, lead with the lower number, but note the higher if they aren't wildly divergent. PoP offers a dizzying array of other metrics that might be cited as well.

Between fields (say, computer science, physics, etc.) it will vary considerably.

Thanks, Jordan, for your very useful and interesting answer.

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

It is of course field- and institution dependent. That said, double digits seems like a pretty good milestone to shoot for for a tenure decision at a research institution. Some fields will be higher,some lower, but 10 is easy to remember, and fairly challenging for tt folks, I think. Of course, clearing this hurdle with room to spare would lower the risks.

In the hard sciences, the standard might be a bit higher (as Hirsch suggests), say 12 or so, for tenure at a research university.

In narrower fields, like resource management, behavioral ecology or such, it would seem like it should be lower. I would be interested in seeing stats on this for natural resources management, forestry, fisheries, range management,etc.

Hi , 

There is an H-Index based on the selective database Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and H-Index based on Google Scholar data, which is much higher. Scientists of the exact science usually have a higher H-index than scientists in the social sciences and the humanities, so that the "passing grade" could be different for different disciplines. Many hiring committees are using the "average 5-year impact factor" of the journals where the scientists publishes his papers to establish his chances for promotion, rather than his H-index. 

Thanks, Daniel and Avishag. Your answers are helping me understand this bizarre new numbers game.

RG is also giving h-values, but if a researcher does not register all of their work (e.g. because they don't get round to it) the figure will not be an accurate representation. From this perspective  (& that the RG platform is convenient to search), could it actually be harmful to start a public profile,  but not complete it? There are some 8 million 'peers' who can see your profile (& that of your institution).

Dear Nicholas, I wasn't aware of that. Can you please tell me with further detail how does RG provide an h-value? Thank you very much.

Carlos:  if you go to https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Rowe2/reputation you will see my profile has an h-index of 5.  My Google Scholar h-index is 6, but I guess that the RG one can only be based on the outputs I have listed on RG. 

My concern is that not only can you do you & your institution a disservice by having a defficient h-index that is publicly visible, but I imagine you could also leave out publications which are not cited or which could lessen your h-index (so artificially raising it).  As an example of the former, my institutional faculty profile on RG has some 48 members, student/lecturer/sen.lec/proffessor grades, but few and relatively low h-index listings. I am sure that more of the faculty have cited work, but because it is not listed on RG, the 'output' of the institution appears less. Until I am more clear on how this works, I would only cite GS/HPoP  h-index scores. But, if I was an institutional manager, I would look at what might come from having members with incomplete media profiles which are available for others to see, & which also contribute to the public profile of the institution. I can understand people not wanting to do the 'social-media' thing (& have low RG scores, but if they also don't bother listing all of their publications, then they might get given a more 'serious' metric that does not reflect their scholarship.

Dear Nicholas, thank you very much for having pointed this to me. I was not aware of the h-index in the frame of RG.

I can mention that there is, as it happens, an asymmetry among the varios h-indexes - say, ISI-Thomspon, Scopus, Google Citation Index, and this here on RG. In any caso, your point prevails, indeed.

So do you think that having an incomplete RG profile could give a negative representation?

RG sums up and subtracts depending on a number of factors, such as your prominence and insistence on various posts and threads, the number of reads, etc. To the best of my knowledge, neither GSCI nor ISI, etc., do subtract. If so, there might be a problem here. Am I right?

Carlos: I think the h-index score has to be separate from the RG & impact scores. However, it must draw from a list of your publications in order to trace citations. I can only think that this is the list you put on your profile as no mention is made of accessing other sources in order to provide you with an h-index. So if your list is deficient, there could well be a problem 😯😞

Dear Nicholas, as pointed out, the h-index in RG appears in everyone's scores. However, as it follows from our conversations here above, there is no clear indication as to the rationale for the h-index in RG. A bit more of lights could be shed on this...

It is interesting to note that scholars are using ResearchGate question pages as sources of information. This is evident in the fact that there have been, to date, 42 answers to this question and 4,092 views (nearly 100 views for each answer). Commenting on a ResearchGate question page is almost like publishing (except that there is no peer review, other than discussion on the page, and the use of our contributions does not contribute to our h-index or other bibliometric indicators, other than the RG score). The interest in this particular question is interesting. I suggest that we go about our jobs as scientists and educators, and worry less about this strange numbers game, which perhaps has more to do with business than with science.

I was recently discussing academic promotion with my line manager, this h-index was mentioned, it was the first time I was made aware my university starts using this index as a reference, so I looked around, found the discussions here are useful, thanks for the insightful comments above

With several sources available (i.e,. ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science), it may be difficult to know how to select a single source or if it is even appropriate to compare them. It is important to first understand how each of these sources arrive to a particular h-index and how they differ.

Here are a couple of papers addressing this issue:

Article Making Use of H-index: the Shape of Science at the Universit...

Article Performance Behavior Patterns in Author-Level Metrics: A Dis...

Thank, you, Monica. I found both articles very interesting and informative.

good question , and i agree with Avishag Gordon

thank you

In my opinion, Google Scholar is a good reference, because it sets rankings (individuals, institutions, references…).

To control for length of service to compare academics could the h-index be divided the number of years from first to last publication, so an h-index of 10 with 10 years between first and last publication = 1. Over 1 is better, under 1 is worse. Thoughts on this?

Dear Chris: That sounds interesting. There is something like what you mention on researchers' Google Scholar's profiles, which include a general H-index and another considering only the last five years, in what is evidently an attempt to level the field when comparing scores of upcoming scholars with the 'graybeards.'

H-Index vary considerably at different sources i.e. ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science , some disciplines have very few journals in their fields and have very low citations per article. I am wondering how we can use H-index as "passing grade" by hiring committees.

I agree with you, Asif. My concern is that administrators and committees may at times be taking the H-index too seriously, rather than carrying out a more thorough review of candidates' research.

It's a fair concern and definitely something that tenure and promotion committees take very seriously. It will largely depend on your Institution as to what metric is considered the benchmark. Google Scholar seems to overestimate productivity due to its rather open format and inclusion of self-citations. Scopus is probably a fair assessment of web collected productivity.

No h-number is considered ever a "passing grade" by companies. If you have a high index number, they'll tell you that you need one asymptotically close to 1. If you have a low they'll tell you you'll need a 1. If you have 1, they'll tell you you have to have the highest possible amongst all candidates and you don't. Don't therefore bother. It's bullshit math magic invented to sieve candidates by excuse.

Actually, my h index is quite good and applied for more than 200 jobs but not get hired or even not get replied by anyone of them. I think, now a days connection is much more important to get job easily. Tq

It really does not matter.

Thank you for your question

You are welcome, Samra. I hope you are having a great day.

It depends on the discipline.

In some contries qualify researchers from a H-index of 20 (scopus)

Six years ago I did some research on this, which was much discussed on researchgate. Like Khaled Saaban A median of 20 does indeed appear to be the bench mark for Professor but it is not the minimum which can be as low as 0 in some cases. Now those appear entirely down to "who you know" appointments. Indeed even convicted criminals can be appointed Professors, if they can charm those in power.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6297631/University-hired-convicted-art-thief-used-corporate-cards-spend-85-000.html

I think there is more to say to this question then just throw a number into the conversation, here is an very interesting post https://www.journal-publishing.com/blog/good-h-index-required-academic-position/

This is a very interesting topic among academics. By Google scholar I have a H-index of 19, which by consensus (or at least by this paper: https://www.journal-publishing.com/blog/good-h-index-required-academic-position/) is a decent one. However, for the last 5 years I have been applying to many opportunities and haven't been called back, not even once. Could it be an age issue?

By Google Scholar I have an H-index of 28, but, having been abroad, never could get a pemanent position coming back to Italy, my home country. Now I have a permanent job ... as a high-school teacher. Times are definitely changing.

It is applicable in evaluation of research.

Paolo Allegrini A sad story indeed. And I was wondering why we have got some teachers from Europe here in Russia with all these low salaries and such...

This is very dependent on discipline and sub discipline and number of years in research. The quality of top 10 papers is also important as well as peer recognition. One number does not tell the whole story.

From findings, 3 to 4 is the average for assistant professors, 8-10 for associates and about 15-20 for full professors.

This depends on the length of research as well. Someone, who is researching for 20 years with H index of 8 mayn't be as good as someone with 5 years and H index of 7. Moreover, certain fields like, medicine and physics generate citations faster than social science & economics. Hence, it's difficult to quantify in an uniform manner.

Another concern with H index is for example a early career researcher may have only two high impact papers in some top tier journals with lot of citations but still H index for that researcher will be only 2 which in my view is not a fair assessment.

I think once one has H index 10 or more, this indicates good establishment in the career, usually between assistant professor and associate professor

David Charles, you have raised an important issue relating to the use of what would appear to be relatively superficial constructs to determine the life and livelihoods of real people (i.e. academics). The fact that this is being done may suggest the need for other measures that could reflect the contributions that people make in a range of scientific disciplines and areas. There might be issues such as the reach and impact that someone may be researching and writing on, the extent to which open access may contribute, or its lack thereof and the timeline that individuals have spent working in their respective areas of expertise. Interesting topic of discussion and debate here...

How about if Undergraduate student have high index? What that mean for you as researcher?.

This depends mostly on your academical field. It ismore difficut for social sciences to get a high h index compared to biological sciences. I do not believe there is an certain passing h index score, but always higher h score above 10 even 15-20 may have influence on selection among the candidates with lower scores

3-4 in Academia, assistant in geology.

It seems that someone should be given credit for a very impactful paper even if they have only one. Those are very rare and deserve merit. It would be best to have a weighting for years since publication and also one for number of co-authors.

Hi,

I wonder if the H-index is part of the consideration for hiring in universities. There are more important considerations to take into account. Besides, there are different kinds of H-index, one of the Google Scholar, another is of the Web of Science, and they are not the same. So , which one to consider ?

I cannot advocate specific criteria. However, as one who is often called upon to make recommendations regarding promotion or tenure, I can say that I rarely support promotion to Associate Professor or Tenure for individuals with an H and D Index > 10. I also rarely recommend promotion to Full Professor for individuals with an H Index < 20.

L lm

I agree with Richard, 10 for associate and 20 for full professor, yet that could be challenging for many people, it needs a lot of work and some luck and networking

My h-index is 19 and I've worked in a University setting for 8 years and was unable to translate my performance based on the h-index into a tenured position at the assistant professor level. In Canada, tenure track positions are becoming increasingly hard to find. PhDs are needing to expand their horizons from traditional academia. Many of us have to find other ways to maintain our interests in the pursuit of knowledge, research and publication. See this recent report from the Canadian Council of Academies - Degrees of Success - https://cca-reports.ca/reports/the-labour-market-transition-of-phd-graduates/ .

Thanks, Dr Baskerville for mentioning that issue. After PhD, one of the most important factors in academia is managing good reference from past supervisor and line manager. Confidential as well as verbal references of those senior and influential people play a huge role. I have seen many people got a permanent academic position with much less than 10 'h' index, even with 2 to 3 'h' index. In many cases, the qualities of those publications are also not excellent. For referencing / mentoring, varied factors, e.g., unconscious gender bias, a bias for BAME candidates etc. also play roles to few supervisors and need attention.

Moreover, if someone has 10 ‘h’ index as a first or single author that should get additional weightage. It must be different to that who is a co-author of a multi-authored paper and who is not the first author. Additionally, some areas of research receive more citations and some very less. All those factors should be taken into consideration by selection committees.

As you are a passionate researcher and already got 19 ‘h’ index, you should soon achieve that goal and all the best wishes.

Hi,

There is a problem with H-index as a measure for hiring in the academia. This measure does not take into account the highly cited paper of a researcher, Besides, there are several H-Indexes for each researcher, one is in subscription databases that are selective, and one is in Google Scholar which is too inclusive. Which one to choose ? The selective database such as World of Science seems more reliable, and a good H-index drawn from this database is 12.

Many respondents to this question offer opinions about h index scores desirable for promotion (one averred that full professor should be h 20 for example, but these recommendations aren't very helpful unless the respondent identifies the discipline, as research is quite clear that H-i scores vary tremendously, with humanities (a book discipline being near one (with perhaps up to 70% of all publications not being cited); followed by social sciences where the average score is very roughly near 5 or six, and with the hard sciences being much higher. Recent research suggests, as I recall, that in this age of easy electronic easy-journal-access, article age and pool-span for cited articles is expanding not contracting. Moreover, be careful on weighting first author. In some disciplines the last author is the mentor; and I myself have taken the lead on at least five articles where I am not the first author. It's complicated, as the saying goes.

Thank you, Wayne. When I asked this question over six years ago, I requested that three variables be mentioned in the answers: disciplines, institutions, and regions. Looking back, I should have asked first: "Are h-index scores considered in hiring processes in your institution?" before asking for more specific information. As this has played out, there are answers to both questions on this thread, which have been very interesting and informative. I confess that I don't see much validity in this sort of numerical ranking. It seems to be doing damage to science. Like other quantitative rating schemes, it can motivate scholars to seek higher scores rather than to expand the frontiers of knowledge, and can even encourage unethical practices in the struggle to compete for jobs and funding.

Selon les recruteurs

However, it is not fair and rational to use it for assessing newly graduated researchers. As H. Wayne Nelson said, the range is quite different in different disciplines.

Hi,

The H-index is not a criterion for acceptance and promotion in all universities and in all disciplines .However, where this measure is used, the 12 and above is considered a good measure.

Based on my experience, H-index and citations are not used as potential criteria’s to find a job. My H- index is 40 and my citation is 1770, I have applied for more than 1000 jobs around the word but couldn’t find any job 😢. Thanks

To my knowledge no respectable hiring committee use h-index as a hiring criteria. They usually want to see the five most relevant publications and in addition an extensive interview and discussion about her/his future project(s)

Dear David Charles Wright-Carr,

I think, "h-index " cannot be the only hiring criteria for a job.

The selection panel would like to check the overall candidate's profile and their performance in the interview/exam/discussions.

Dear David Charles Wright-Carr,

H-index is a good indicator to present yourself how much creative and best researcher you are. However, now-a days, in most of the appointing authority are not thinking this H-index for the selection of a personnel. In recent days, several scientist/appointing authority are thinking and also has given more emphasis on this index. Anyway, the value of H-index is higher than 15 is good for a Professor and for associate Prof. it will be a good indicator contains this value of 12 and for Assistant Prof. this value should be 10 and for lecturer, it should be 5-8 depending on their field of research.

I am not sure if h-index is a requirement for hiring an academic. However, those figures provided above show a good indication of a good research output.

However, nowadays, most of the appointing authorities are not thinking of this H-index for the selection of personnel. In recent days, several scientists/appointing authorities are thinking and also has given more emphasis on this index.

.

Different disciplines have different spectrums of citations and h-index.