Intuitively, the approximation makes sense since you're looking for the middle of a 1/x distribution. But this only works if the distribution is pretty symmetric - the higher your peak or the longer your tail the less accurate it will be, I guess.
-
-
-
However, aside from the nice maths, isn't the reason that H-index is a terrible measure, the fact that it reduces the whole of an academic's output to a single number? A lifetime of work, and creativity...and it's "15". That seems to me to be a huge disservice to research(ers).
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Interesting! Wondering what if using WoS or Scopus data is getting the similar pattern like what Google Scholar has or not?
-
Bang on for me in Scopus: 7 vs 7.5
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Then divide by two = 16.5

- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
google scholar and its closed data should be redundant too! use your
@ORCID_Org ,link it to@Impactstory_now and@Science_Open then try https://profiles.impactstory.org or https://www.scienceopen.com/search#author/fd6fa6bc-3cf0-472f-81e3-f5e8a40c8d45 … Wikidata should be a solution in the future...Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I fear you have just created the G index. It's the square root of your total citation count divided by 2, and then divided by your H-index. Not sure if a high one or a low one is good but there will be someone involved in measuring research impact that thinks it's a good idea!pic.twitter.com/SgKdlMiANt
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.