Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2008 Oct 6:5:88.
doi: 10.1186/1742-4690-5-88.

Sometimes the impact factor outshines the H index

Johannes Hönekopp  1 , Janet Kleber
Affiliations
Editorial

Sometimes the impact factor outshines the H index

Johannes Hönekopp et al. Retrovirology. .

Abstract

Journal impact factor (which reflects a particular journal's quality) and H index (which reflects the number and quality of an author's publications) are two measures of research quality. It has been argued that the H index outperforms the impact factor for evaluation purposes. Using articles first-authored or last-authored by board members of Retrovirology, we show here that the reverse is true when the future success of an article is to be predicted. The H index proved unsuitable for this specific task because, surprisingly, an article's odds of becoming a 'hit' appear independent of the pre-eminence of its author. We discuss implications for the peer-review process.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Article citation frequency is predicted by journal impact factor (r = .22, p = .029) but not by first author's H-index (r = -.15, p = .16).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jeang KT. Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics? Retrovirology. 2007;4:42. doi: 10.1186/1742-4690-4-42. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hirsch JE. Does the h index have predictive power? PNAS. 2007;104:19193–19198. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707962104. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good, but...: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psych Bull. 1991;110:109–128. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109. - DOI
    1. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psych Rev. 1996;103:650–669. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hönekopp J, Rudolph U, Beier L, Liebert A, Müller C. Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness. Evol Hum Behav. 2007;28:106–111. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.001. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources