Scientometrics
Volume/Issue:
Volume 90: Issue 3
Future publication success in science is better predicted by traditional measures than by the h index
Authors:
Johannes Hönekopp Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

Search for other papers by Johannes Hönekopp in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
and
Julie Khan Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK

Search for other papers by Julie Khan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
843–853
Online Publication Date:
06 Nov 2011
Publication Date:
01 Mar 2012
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0551-2
Keywords:
Science; Evaluation; Creativity; Bibliometry; h index
Restricted access

Abstract

Although the use of bibliometric indicators for evaluations in science is becoming more and more ubiquitous, little is known about how future publication success can be predicted from past publication success. Here, we investigated how the post-2000 publication success of 85 researchers in oncology could be predicted from their previous publication record. Our main findings are: (i) Rates of past achievement were better predictors than measures of cumulative achievement. (ii) A combination of authors’ past productivity and the past citation rate of their average paper was most successful in predicting future publication success (R2 ≈ 0.60). (iii) This combination of traditional bibliographic indicators clearly outperformed predictions based on the rate of the h index (R2 between 0.37 and 0.52). We discuss implications of our findings for views on creativity and for science evaluation.

  • Alonso, S, Cabrerizo, FJ, Herrera-Viedema, E, Herrera, F 2009 H index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardisation for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics 3:273–289 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bornmann, L 2011 Mimicry in science?. Scientometrics 86:173–177 .

  • Bornmann, L, Daniel, H-D 2005 Does the h index for ranking of scientists really work?. Scientometrics 65:391–392 .

  • Bornmann, L, Daniel, H-D 2009 The state of h index research. EMBO Reports 10:2–6 .

  • Bornmann, L, Mutz, R, Daniel, H-D 2008 Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:830–837 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bornmann, L, Wallon, G, Ledin, A 2008 Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation 17:149–156 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bornmann, L, Mutz, R, Daniel, H-D 2009 Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:1286–1289 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dawes, RM 1979 The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 34:571–582 .

  • Dawes, RM, Faust, D, Meehl, PE 1989 Clinical versus actuarial judgement. Science 243:1668–1674 .

  • Egghe, L 2005 Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics Elsevier Academic Press Kidlington.

  • Feist, GJ 1993 A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science 4:366–371 .

  • Henzinger, M, Suñol, J, Weber, I 2010 The stability of the h index. Scientometrics 84:465–479 .

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 16569-16572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104, 19193-19198.

  • Hönekopp, J., & Kleber, J. (2008). Sometimes the impact factor outshines the h index. Retrovirology, 5 (88).

  • Huber, JC 2001 A new method for analysing scientific productivity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52:1089–1099 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jin, B, Liang, L, Rousseau, R, Egghe, L 2007 The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h index. Chinese Science Bulletin 52:855–863 .

  • Kelly, CD, Jennions, MD 2006 The h index and carrier assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:167–170 .

  • Lawrence, PA 2007 The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 17:R583 .

  • Lehmann, S, Jackson, AD, Lautrup, BE 2008 A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics 76:369–390 .

  • Lovegrove, BG, Johnson, SD 2008 Assessment of research performance in biology: How well do peer review and bibliometry correlate. BioScience 58:160–164 .

  • Macilwain, C 2010 Wild goose chase. Nature 463:291 .

  • Poynard, T, Thabut, D, Munteanu, M, Ratziu, V, Benhamou, Y, Deckmyn, O 2010 Hirsch index and truth survival in clinical research. PLoS ONE 5:e12044 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Redner, S 1998 How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. The European Physical Journal B 4:131–134 .

  • Schmidt, FL, Hunter, JE 1998 The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 124:262–274 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schreiber, M 2008 To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics 10:040201 .

  • Simonton, DK 1997 Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review 104:66–89 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Simonton, DK 2003 Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behaviour: The integration of product, person and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin 129:475–494 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • AFJ van Raan 2004 Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues HF Moed W Glänzel U Schmoch eds. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, pp. 19–50 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • AFJ van Raan 2006 Comparison of the Hirsch index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 67:491–502.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Scientometrics
Scientometrics
Print ISSN:
0138-9130
Online ISSN:
1588-2861

To see the editorial board, please visit the website of Springer Nature.

Manuscript submission: http://www.editorialmanager.com/scim/

For subscription options, please visit the website of Springer Nature.

Scientometrics
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation		 1978
Volumes
per Year		 1
Issues
per Year		 12
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
CH-6330 Cham, Switzerland Gewerbestrasse 11.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0138-9130 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2861 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Mar 2024 31 0 0
Apr 2024 31 1 0
May 2024 21 0 0
Jun 2024 16 0 0
Jul 2024 59 0 0
Aug 2024 48 0 0
Sep 2024 2 0 0