382 researchers with an h-index of 100 or larger

[Andreas Strotmann]

Thank you very much, Isidro, for what should become a future text-book
example for just how lousy a metric for researcher quality the h index is,
not just for young scholars, but even for the most venerated classics. Let
me just highlight Max Weber: ~ 10th by number of citations (as the founding
father of modern sociology, a fitting place), but well below 200th place by
h index (and since this ranking is highly incomplete - I'm missing Luhmann
and Habermas amongst his colleagues, for example - he'd probably end up in
the 300s in a complete ranking).  When people are mostly cited for their
books, as German sociologists are, their h-index is naturally and severely
limited by the number of their publications, not citations.

May I suggest, therefore, that you redo the ranking by numbers of citations
rather than h-index?

Best regards,

 -- Andreas Strotmann

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Isidro F. Aguillo <
isidro.aguillo at cchs.csic.es> wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> A frequent criticism to the citation analysis stemmed from its alleged
> inability to evaluate the results of social scientists in general and the
> books as objects of scholarly communication in particular.
>
> For several years I have been working with Google Scholar, an alternative
> to the WoS and Scopus, and now I have evidence to show that the alleged
> bias of bibliometrics is probably the result of an incomplete and biased
> coverage of the sources used so far.
>
> I just published a ranking of the all-time most cited scientists (of all
> time) according to their public profiles in Google Scholar Citations. A
> list of the 382 entries with an h-index of 100 or larger is here:
>
> http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/58
>
> Although these profiles are built on a voluntary basis and it is far from
> complete, there are at least two very relevant patterns observed
> immediately:
> - A number of social scientists in positions of privilege. Some of the
> deceased ones show that the "impact" of their work endures in time far
> beyond 2 or 5 years.
> - The books are achieving in many cases citations exceeding the several
> thousand, so claiming their value as a tool for scientific communication
>
> A not so obvious corollary is the need of increasing the visibility of the
> output in Social Sciences and Humanities, profiting of the capabilities
> offered by the Open Access repositories and the social networks. Certainly
> not because of being under the new altmetrics indicators but to increase
> the number of citations and to reduce the time delay in the recognition of
> the contributions.
>
> --
>
> ************************************
> Isidro F. Aguillo, HonDr.
> The Cybermetrics Lab, IPP-CSIC
> Grupo Scimago
> Madrid. SPAIN
>
> isidro.aguillo at csic.es
> ORCID 0000-0001-8927-4873
> ResearcherID: A-7280-2008
> Scholar Citations SaCSbeoAAAAJ
> Twitter @isidroaguillo
> Rankings Web webometrics.info
> ************************************
>
>
> ---
> Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast!
> Antivirus está activa.
> http://www.avast.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20141027/351ad145/attachment.html>