I know some people who are considered successful in their career. People who are good at playing their cards in finding opportunities to succeed and be famous. People are very egocentric and self-centered. Always working hard to achieve something and is always looking ways to promote themselves, anywhere and anytime. Sometimes promote excessively their work. Although all these achievements are not ‘great’, but they know how to update and sell their achievements.
Unfair as it may seem. However, this is reality of life. If you know the trick, play your cards right! However, history has proven that people who opportunistic will not be remembered and will be quickly forgotten by society, because they do not provide benefits to the community.
That’s life, are the words that came out from our mouth when we are facing with the problem. Depending on how we deal with the problem, we can assume that the problem of life is actually a ‘game of life’. The game of life can be considered seriously or just as a game. So, the key is, if we see everything is a heavy burden, it would be difficult to handle. But if you look at them as a light burden, then, they become easy to handle – like the above funny cartoon which I found in the internet.
Easily, h is the number of articles greater than h that have at least h citations. For example, an h-index of 20 means that there are 20 items that have 20 citations or more.
Well, now you’ll understand that the h-index is an instrument to determine the quality of a scientist. Many argue that the h-index is not important, particularly those someone who claims himself to be a scientist, but do not have h-index value or possess a low value of h-index.
From inspection of the citation records of many physicists, I conclude:
(1) A value m ~ 1, i.e. an h-index of 20 after 20 years of scientific activity, characterizes a successful scientist. (2) A value m ~ 2, i.e. an h-index of 40 after 20 years of scientific activity, characterizes outstanding scientists, likely to be found only at the top universities or major research laboratories. (3) A value m ~ 3 or higher, i.e. an h-index of 60 after 20 years, or 90 after 30 years, characterizes truly unique individuals. The m-parameter ceases to be useful if a scientist does not maintain his/her level of productivity, while the h parameter remains useful as a measure of cumulative achievement that may continue to increase over time even long after the scientist has stopped publishing altogether. Based on typical h and m values found, I suggest that (with large error bars) for faculty at major research universities h ~ 10 to 12 might be a typical value for advancement to tenure (associate professor), and h ~ 18 for advancement to full professor. Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ~ 15 to 20. Membership in the US National Academy of Sciences may typically be associated with h ~ 45 and higher except in exceptional circumstances.
So, how do we evaluate our scientists? What are the criteria? In my opinion this is an important aspect to be considered, especially in giving the award in the field of science and technology.