The H-index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication impact of experimental scientists

Abstract

Research metrics are often used to assess the reputation of scientists. One commonly employed research metric is the H-index. It measures the publication impact of scientists. But how is it conceivable for a scientist with no distinguished track record in an experimental field to generate greater publication impact than prize-winning scientists? The answer, by resorting to a publishing strategy which places less focus on experimental innovations. I make the case here that the H-index is an abysmal metric for evaluating experimental researchers and that an alternative experiment-oriented metric is sorely needed to quantitate the work of experimental scientists.