On the use of the h-index in evaluating chemical research

BackgroundThe h index bibliometric indicator for evaluating scientists and scientific institutions plays an increasingly important role in evaluating contemporary scientific research, including chemistry.ResultsCitations are meaningful. The best way of measuring performance is to use the informed peer review, where peers judge on the base of a bibliometric report, once the limits and advantages of bibliometric indicators have been thoroughly understood.ConclusionsExpanded and improved use of bibliometric indicators such as the h index in a useful and wise manner is suggested.

[1]  C. Borgman.  Scholarship in the Digital Age , 2007 .

[2]  R. Cagan.  The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment , 2013, Disease Models & Mechanisms.

[3]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? , 2011 .

[4]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry , 2011, Scientometrics.

[5]  T. W. Dewitt,et al.  Science citation index and chemistry , 1980, Scientometrics.

[6]  黄亚明,et al.  DOAJ , 2012 .

[7]  Andreas Thor,et al.  Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry - Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[8]  E. Garfield.  The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[9]  Inês Ferreira dos Santos Videira,et al.  Mechanisms regulating melanogenesis* , 2013, Anais brasileiros de dermatologia.

[10]  Anne-Wil Harzing.  Publish or perish , 2015, Nature.

[11]  “Of sea urchins, volcanoes, earthquakes … and engagement”: Marcello Carapezza, Alberto Monroy, and Italy's University System , 2007, Science in Context.

[12]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners , 2013, Scientometrics.

[13]  K. K. Hii.  Chemistry Central Journal , 2007 .

[14]  R. Zare.  Assessing academic researchers. , 2012, Angewandte Chemie.

[15]  Rickard Danell,et al.  Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Having an impact (factor) , 2008, Genome Biology.

[17]  Chun-Ting Zhang,et al.  The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations , 2009, PloS one.

[18]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What do we know about the h index? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  E. Garfield,et al.  Citation indexes for science. , 1956, Science.

[20]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  P. Feyerabend,et al.  Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge , 1976 .

[22]  E. Picard.  San Francisco declaration on research assessment , 2013 .

[23]  P. Feyerabend.  Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge , 1976 .

[24]  Gabriel Kreiman,et al.  Nine Criteria for a Measure of Scientific Output , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[25]  Philip Campbell,et al.  Escape from the impact factor , 2008 .

[26]  Jenny Fry,et al.  Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet , 2010 .

[27]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[28]  E. Garfield.  Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. 1955. , 1955, International journal of epidemiology.