Let's Analyze What Makes a Good H-Index Score
Mar 7, 2023 |
8 Mins ReadUnderstanding H-Index
The H-index is a metric that measures an author’s productivity by the number of publications that have published their work and the impact of the work based on the number of citations their research receives. In general, authors with a higher h-index score will have produced more research and therefore published more content which, to their peers, creates their reputation of credibility.
This quantitative metric was brought about in 2005 by Argentinian-American professor of physics Jorge E. Hirsch to analyse publication data.
Finding an author’s H-index
There are multiple platforms on which you may find an author’s H-index score. To name a few, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of science etc. However, in this blog, we’ll take you through the process of locating an author’s H-index on google scholar as shown below.
- Visit Google Scholar
- Enter the author’s name in the search bar
- If a profile exists for the author, it will appear at the top of the search results, click the author's name, and their profile page will open.
- View their h-index on the right side of the screen.
Calculating H-Index Score
The H-index measures the importance, significance, and impact of research contributions. To calculate an author’s H-index, you’d need to create a list of all publications in which the author has been published and rank them in descending order of the citations his/her work has received. Understanding the H-index of an author is an indication of their credibility, so that brings us to the question:
What is a good H-index score?
J. E. Hirsch (2005) observes that Noble Prize winners in physics have an average H-index score of 30, this highlights that Noble prize winners are selected with a scientific body of research and a history of contributional impact. This proved that successful scientists do need a good h-index score.
Hirsch stated that after 20 years of research; an H-index score of 20 was good, 40 was outstanding and 60 was truly exceptional.
Does the H-index score evaluate an author in all important aspects?
Undoubtedly, it is appealing to have a singular value that measures an author's productivity and impact. Many committees have opted the H-index as their metric of choice as well. Bordons and Costas (2007) stated that the key advantage of the H-index metric is that it measures the scientific output of a researcher with objectivity. This plays a vital role in making decisions about promotions, fund allocation and awarding prizes.
However, there are suggestions that H-index does not take other important variables into account. According to Enago Academy (2022), a higher H-index score does not indicate better quality of research. The article further elaborates that the H-index score does not account for an author’s career stage, research and journal quality and contribution to the scientific community. The score also has potential unintended negative impacts; for example, a younger researcher may not challenge a researcher with a high h-index score and researchers aiming for a higher h-index may only pursue popular fields of science.
Furthermore, BiteSizeBio (2021) states that the H-index score does not take into account the number of authors on a research paper. If a paper has 1 author with about 100 citations, this researcher deserves more recognition than a paper that had 10 authors with similar citations.
The fluctuation of the H-index score
The H-index score does not decrease unless the paper is redacted or deleted. Older papers may continue to gain new citations, and the h-index can potentially increase indefinitely, even after the researcher has stopped actively publishing.
What is the difference between H-index and the journal impact factor?
The Journal Impact Factor metric is used to evaluate the importance of a journal within its respective field or discipline. In simpler terms, it measures the frequency of citations the average article within this journal receives. On the contrary, the H-index metric is used to measure the productivity and quality of an author’s publications. While they are both measures of research quality, they measure different aspects of research and can therefore not be compared.
To conclude, having a good H-index score is impressive. However, every author’s research contrasts with that of another. There are many more aspects to investigate when evaluating a researcher.
Discover millions of e-books, journal articles, proceedings and more on Zendy.
ZAIA vs DeepSeek: Which AI Tool is Better For Researchers
AI tools have made handling complex tasks easier, but not all of them are created equal. While DeepSeek is widely known and accessible, it is a general-purpose AI tool, available to the public and easily understood by many. In contrast, ZAIA, an AI assistant for researchers developed by Zendy, takes a more specialised approach. Designed specifically for researchers and academics, ZAIA easily integrates into academic workflows with customised tools. Let’s take a closer look at how these two AI tools compare. What is DeepSeek DeepSeek AI is a Chinese conversational AI chat created by Liang Wenfeng, mostly used as a general-purpose AI tool that can assist with writing, brainstorming, coding, and more. It’s a Swiss Army knife, good for a lot of things but not customised to a specific need. This makes it a great option for users who need an all-in-one AI assistant rather than a highly specialised tool. What is ZAIA ZAIA, Zendy’s AI assistant, is built with researchers in mind. You can ask any research-related question, and ZAIA will analyse millions of academic papers to provide credible, reference-backed answers. In addition, It’s integrated into Zendy to give you access to over 40 million academic research papers and offers AI tools that make chatting, summarising, analysing, and extracting insights from research papers much simpler. ZAIA and DeepSeek Data & Knowledge Sources One of the key differences between ZAIA and DeepSeek is how they access and process information. ZAIA is designed by researchers for researchers, providing direct access to a vast collection of 40 million scholarly publications through Zendy’s massive digital library. This means researchers retrieve precise insights for their research, summarise it, and chat with it, all from credible, peer-reviewed sources. DeepSeek, on the other hand, is trained on a broad dataset covering various topics but lacks integration with academic databases like Zendy, PubMed or even SpringerLink, and cannot verify sources with citations. While it can generate general information, it lacks the ability to pull insights directly from academic literature, with a high possibility of predatory journals in the outputs. So, what does DeepSeek do better? As we mentioned above, it helps you in answering questions, brainstorming ideas, helping with writing, summarising information, and providing explanations on complex topics in a clear, understandable way. A Smarter, Lower Energy Consumption Choice Since AI became available to the public, concerns about energy consumption have begun to rise. For instance, DeepSeek-V3 required 2,788,000 GPU hours for training, equivalent to 836,400 kWh of energy. According to NDTV News, this consumes less energy compared to the current leading U.S. AI model, ChatGPT. According to RW Digital, the annual energy consumption for ChatGPT is expected to hit 226.8 GWh. To give you an idea of how much energy that is: It could fully charge 3.13 million electric vehicles, which is nearly 95% of all electric vehicles in the United States. It could power around 21,602 U.S. homes for a whole year. It would be enough to run the entire countries of Finland or Belgium for one day. On the other hand, ZAIA was developed to minimise energy usage even more, consuming as little as several kilowatts (kW) per server in data centres ZAIA’s focus on academic tasks means it requires fewer resources. This makes it an environmentally friendly choice for researchers who value sustainability. Who Should Use Which? If you’re looking for a general-purpose assistant to handle a variety of tasks, DeepSeek is a good option. But if you’re a student, researcher, or academic professional who works with research papers regularly, ZAIA is a better fit. It’s built to simplify the research process and provide you with the necessary AI tools and access to your academic needs, integrating AI in scientific research for enhanced productivity and quicker discoveries. Conclusion DeepSeek is a great all-around tool, but ZAIA’s focus on the academic field makes it the smarter choice for researchers. It’s affordable, consumes less energy and time, and is designed to make your academic journey smoother. That’s why, when it comes to AI tools, personalisation is the key. .wp-block-image img { max-width: 85% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }
What is Synthesis in Research? Synthesis vs. Summerising vs. Analysis
Going through mountains of papers, studies, and data is a common task when working on a research project. Finding a logical approach to combine all of this information is the hard part. This process is called synthesis, a skill that can help make your research be clearer, more insightful, and more impactful. In simple terms, synthesis in research means combining ideas from different sources to create a new understanding. But here’s the thing: synthesis is often confused with summarising or analysing, which can lead to unclear or incomplete results. In this blog, we’ll break down what synthesis really means, how it’s different from other processes, and how you can do it well. Let’s get started. What is Synthesis in Research? It's about connecting ideas, data, and findings from multiple sources to generate a new perspective. It’s not just repeating what others have said—it’s about connecting the dots to see the bigger picture and how sources relate to your main idea For instance, suppose you are researching the effects of exercise on mental health. One study may indicate that yoga enhances mood, another suggests jogging lowers anxiety and a third that emphasises the advantages of team sports for social well-being. In order to conclude that different kinds of exercise have different positive effects on mental health, synthesis in research involves connecting these studies together. How is Synthesis in Research Different from Summarising and Analysing? A lot of researchers mix up synthesis with summarising or analysing. Here’s how they’re different: Synthesis vs. Summarising Summarising Summarising means condensing the key points of a source or multiple sources without adding new insights. Example: If three studies say that exercise improves mental health, a summary would list those findings without connecting them. Synthesis goes a step further. It combines ideas from multiple sources to create a new understanding. Example: Connecting findings about running, yoga, and team sports to show how different types of exercise benefit mental health in unique ways. Synthesis vs. Analysis Analysis involves breaking down a single source or idea to examine its parts, strengths, or weaknesses. It’s about looking closely at one piece of information. Example: Analysing a study on exercise and mental health might involve critiquing its methods or interpreting its results in detail. Synthesis does not just connect ideas but constructs a new argument or framework from them. It’s about seeing how different pieces of information relate to each other. Example: Synthesising multiple studies on exercise and mental health might reveal patterns, like how different types of exercise affect different aspects of mental health. Why Is Synthesis in Research Important? Because it helps you: See Connections: By combining insights, you can understand a topic more fully. Find Gaps: It helps you spot what’s missing in the existing research. Build Stronger Arguments: When you connect ideas from multiple sources, your conclusions become more convincing. Make Research Useful: In fields like policy or healthcare, synthesis helps turn research into practical solutions. Without synthesis, research can feel scattered or repetitive. It’s what ties everything together. How to Do Synthesis in Research: A Step-by-Step Guide Here’s a simple way to approach synthesis in research: 1. Start with a Clear Question Before diving into your sources, ask yourself: What am I trying to learn or answer? A clear question will help you stay focused and avoid getting overwhelmed. 2. Gather Your Sources Look for reliable, relevant studies, articles, and data. Use tools like Zendy to find the latest articles in one place and EndNote to keep everything organised. 3. Look for Patterns and Connections As you read, take notes on common themes, differences, or trends. For example, do multiple studies point to the same conclusion? Are there conflicting results? A table or chart can help you visualise these patterns. 4. Bring It All Together Combine the insights you’ve gathered into a cohesive narrative. Explain how the ideas relate to each other and to your research question. 5. Draw Your Conclusions Summarise what you’ve learned and explain why it matters. Be honest about any limitations and suggest areas for further study. How can you improve your synthesis skills? Read your sources multiple times. Make well-organised notes on each one. Find relevant ideas and evidence for them. Rearrange your notes based on concepts. Put ideas into an outline. Conclusion Synthesis in research is more than just combining information—it’s about creating new knowledge and understanding. By following the steps above, you can effectively bring together ideas, spot patterns, and produce work that’s clear, insightful, and useful. Whether you're a student, academic, or professional, synthesis can help you take your research to the next level. Struggling to make sense of your research? AI tools can assist with synthesis by identifying key themes and connections across multiple papers, check out our AI tools to simplify the process and get better results. Let’s make your research work for you! .wp-block-image img { max-width: 85% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }
JIF vs. SJR Ranking: What's The Difference?
Two of the most common journal rankings are the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). They both measure journal impact but in different ways. Knowing how they work can help you choose the right journal to publish in. If you're deciding where to publish your research or assessing the significance of journals in your field, understanding these metrics can guide your choices. While both JIF and SJR aim to measure journal impact, they approach it differently. Depending on your needs, you might prefer one over the other or consider both for a well-rounded view. What Is SJR? Developed by SCImago using Scopus's database, SJR ranking evaluates the scientific impact of journals on their citations. Unlike a simple citation count, SJR assigns a higher value to citations from prestigious journals, meaning that not all citations carry the same weight. Key Features of SJR Ranking: Citation Quality Is Important: A journal's SJR ranking is influenced more by citations from reputable publications. Three-Year Citation Window: Citations are taken into account by SJR ranking for a duration of three years. Field-Normalised: SJR ranking takes into consideration variations among disciplines, which facilitates the comparison of publications from various fields of study. Open Access Inclusion: By incorporating open-access journals, SJR ranking provides a more comprehensive understanding of journal impact. What Is JIF? The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) provides one of the most well-known indicators of a journal, run by Clarivate and based on Web of Science database. Unlike SJR ranking, JIF is calculated by a straightforward ratio: the number of citations a journal receives in a given year divided by the number of citable articles published in the previous two years. Key Features of JIF: Two-Year Citation Window – Focuses on recent citations. Straightforward Calculation – It is simple to understand because it uses a simple average. Exclusive to Web of Science – Only Web of Science-indexed journals are included. Heavily Used in Academic Promotion – JIF is often a deciding factor in funding applications and tenure evaluations. Which Ranking Should You Use? It depends on what you're looking for. If you need a broader view of journal impact that considers citation prestige, SJR ranking may be more useful. If you're in a field where the Journal Impact Factor is commonly used for assessments (e.g., life sciences, medicine), JIF might be the better choice. If you're working with open-access journals, SJR provides a more inclusive perspective. In Conclusion While each ranking system has advantages, none of them is a perfect measurement of journal ranking quality. To have a better view of a journal's influence, think about examining a variety of classifications rather than depending solely on SJR ranking or JIF ranking. Knowing these distinctions will help you make well-informed choices, whether choosing a journal for publication or assessing a research paper. Sources: Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) .wp-block-image img { max-width: 85% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }