Return to Answer

I'm in physics. I hit an h (as computed by inSpire) of 16 while I was still a postdoc, and I was running low compared to my colleagues in the same sub-field (experimental particle physics) whose careers were going ahead faster than mine. On the other hand, most of my theory colleagues at a similar place in their careers were far behind me in h.

Lessons: (A) It might have meaning in comparing two people in essentially the same sub-discipline, but you simply can't make comparisons across narrowly constructed field boundaries. (B) The wikipedia article was written by someone who hasn't look broadly enough.

If you insist on using bibliometrics to compare candidates you need to rate each one in terms of their progress relative their peers as closely defined as possible. That is a lot of work, so it is not for lazy people.

I'm in physics. I hit an h (as computed by inSpire) of 16 while I was still a postdoc, and I was running low compared to my colleagues in the same sub-field (experimental particle physics) whose careers were going ahead faster than mine. On the other hand, most of my theory colleagues at a similar place in their careers were far behind me in h.

Lessons: (A) It might have meaning in comparing two people in essentially the same sub-discipline, but you simply can't make comparisons across narrowly constructed field boundaries. (B) The numbers in the Wikipedia article are too tightly constrained and not broadly applicable.

If you insist on using bibliometrics to compare candidates you need to rate each one in terms of their progress relative their peers as closely defined as possible. That is a lot of work, so it is not for lazy people.

I'm in physics. I hit an h (as computed by inSpire) of 16 while I was still a postdoc, and I was running low compared to my colleagues in the same sub-field (experimental particle physics) whose careers were going ahead faster than mine. On the other hand, most of my theory colleagues at a similar place in their careers were far behind me in h.

Lessons: (A) It might have meaning in comparing two people in essentially the sub-discipline, but you simply can't make comparisons across narrowly constructed field boundaries. (B) The wikipedia article was written by someone who hasn't look broadly enough.

If you insist on using bibliometrics to compare candidates you need to rate each one in terms of their progress relative their peers as closely defined as possible. That is a lot of work, so it is not for lazy people.

I'm in physics. I hit an h (as computed by inSpire) of 16 while I was still a postdoc, and I was running low compared to my colleagues in the same sub-field (experimental particle physics) whose careers were going ahead faster than mine. On the other hand, most of my theory colleagues at a similar place in their careers were far behind me in h.

Lessons: (A) It might have meaning in comparing two people in essentially the same sub-discipline, but you simply can't make comparisons across narrowly constructed field boundaries. (B) The wikipedia article was written by someone who hasn't look broadly enough.

If you insist on using bibliometrics to compare candidates you need to rate each one in terms of their progress relative their peers as closely defined as possible. That is a lot of work, so it is not for lazy people.

I'm in physics. I hit an $h$ (as computed by inSpire) of 16 while I was still a postdoc, and I was running low compared to my colleagues in the same sub-field (experimental particle physics) whose careers were going ahead faster than mine. On the other hand, most of my theory colleagues at a similar place in their careers were far behind me in $h$.

Lessons: (A) It might have meaning in comparing two people in essentially the sub-discipline, but you simply can't make comparisons across narrowly constructed field boundaries. (B) The wikipedia article was written by someone who hasn't look broadly enough.

If you insist on using bibliometrics to compare candidates you need to rate each one in terms of their progress relative their peers as closely defined as possible. That is a lot of work, so it is not for lazy people.

I'm in physics. I hit an h (as computed by inSpire) of 16 while I was still a postdoc, and I was running low compared to my colleagues in the same sub-field (experimental particle physics) whose careers were going ahead faster than mine. On the other hand, most of my theory colleagues at a similar place in their careers were far behind me in h.

Lessons: (A) It might have meaning in comparing two people in essentially the sub-discipline, but you simply can't make comparisons across narrowly constructed field boundaries. (B) The wikipedia article was written by someone who hasn't look broadly enough.

If you insist on using bibliometrics to compare candidates you need to rate each one in terms of their progress relative their peers as closely defined as possible. That is a lot of work, so it is not for lazy people.