Sir
The h-index (the number n of a researcher's papers that have received at least n citations) may paint a more objective picture of productivity than some metrics, as your News story 'Achievement index climbs the ranks' (Nature 448, 737; 2007) points out. But for all such metrics, context is critical.
Many citations are used simply to flesh out a paper's introduction, having no real significance to the work. Citations are also sometimes made in a negative context, or to fraudulent or retracted publications. Other confounding factors include the practice of 'gratuitous authorship' and the so-called 'Matthew effect', whereby well-established researchers and projects are cited disproportionately more often than those that are less widely known. Finally, bibliometrics do not compensate for the well-known citation bias that favours review articles.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Contributions to Correspondence may be submitted to correspondence@nature.com. They should be no longer than 300 words. Published contributions are edited. We welcome comments at Nautilus ( http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus ).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wendl, M. H-index: however ranked, citations need context. Nature 449, 403 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/449403b
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/449403b
This article is cited by
-
NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study
Journal of General Internal Medicine (2022)
-
The simplex simulation as a tool to reveal publication strategies and citation factors
Scientometrics (2022)
-
The HF-rating as a universal complement to the h-index
Scientometrics (2020)
-
P-score: a reputation bibliographic index that complements citation counts
Scientometrics (2019)
-
Universal trajectories of scientific success
Knowledge and Information Systems (2018)