Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future publication success in science is better predicted by traditional measures than by the h index

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 (R 2 ≈ 0.60). (iii) This combination of traditional bibliographic indicators clearly outperformed predictions based on the rate of the h index (R 2 between 0.37 and 0.52). We discuss implications of our findings for views on creativity and for science evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interestingly, one of our reviewers pointed out that our logarithmic prediction models have the same form as the Cobb–Douglas production function, which models how labour and capital can substitute each other to achieve a particular production goal.

References

  • Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008a). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., & Ledin, A. (2008b). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgement. Science, 243, 1668–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and carrier assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 167–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. A. (2007). The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology, 17, R583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2008). A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics, 76, 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovegrove, B. G., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). Assessment of research performance in biology: How well do peer review and bibliometry correlate. BioScience, 58, 160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, pp. 19–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67, 491–502.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK

    Johannes Hönekopp & Julie Khan

Authors
  1. Johannes Hönekopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Hönekopp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hönekopp, J., Khan, J. Future publication success in science is better predicted by traditional measures than by the h index. Scientometrics 90, 843–853 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0551-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0551-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation