English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The impact of individual scientists is commonly quantified usingcitation-based measures. The most common such measure is the h-index. Ascientist's h-index affects hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and thusshapes the progress of science. Here we report a large-scale study ofscientometric measures, analyzing millions of articles and hundreds of millionsof citations across four scientific fields and two data platforms. We find thatthe correlation of the h-index with awards that indicate recognition by thescientific community has substantially declined. These trends are associatedwith changing authorship patterns. We show that these declines can be mitigatedby fractional allocation of citations among authors, which has been discussedin the literature but not implemented at scale. We find that a fractionalanalogue of the h-index outperforms other measures as a correlate and predictorof scientific awards. Our results suggest that the use of the h-index inranking scientists should be reconsidered, and that fractional allocationmeasures such as h-frac provide more robust alternatives. An interactivevisualization of our work can be found at https://h-frac.org

The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation