All, Nature published a news article related to this issue last week (with apologies to those without access); Achievement index climbs the ranks Nature 448, 737 (16 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448737a .
It discusses the rise of the Hirsch index or "h-index" as a measure of research productivity and its ability to predict a young researcher's future output. This index is, quoting the article, "...the number n of a researcher's papers that have all received at least n citations". e.g.) if I have 5 first author papers each cited 5 times by other authors, my H-index would be 5, The index's algorithm accounts for self citations and author order (here is a link to a software tool that calculates the index based on google scholar searches http://www.harzing.com/resources.htm#/pop.htm). I also believe Web of Science will now calculate this value as well using their database. Hirsch is quoted in the article as having seen applicants citing their personal H-index in CV's. This seems like a interesting way to measure a researcher's potential productivity as compared to a simple "# of citations" count. Especially since such a measure is susceptible to manipulation. The eithics or optics of providing any measure of productivity to a search committee is another matter. Cheers Chris MacQuarrie Phd Candidate University of Alberta On 8/23/07, Brian Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings all, > Gary brings up an interesting topic that I would like to hear more > about from other colleagues: the concept of single large versus several > small (sounds like a Conservation Biology topic actually), or more > accurately: single large verus several small + single large. > > All else being equal, if an applicant has 10 manuscripts in regional > journals and 3 in top-tier journals, versus the same applicant with only > 3 manuscripts in top-tier journals, would one be preferred in lieu of > the other? I understand the "Selected Publications" trick where an > applicant can avoid listing the smaller publications, but I reject the > notion that an applicant must do that to remain competitive. It has been > suggested to me that publishing in smaller journals is sometimes viewed > negatively regardless of your other important publications. > > I hope it is not the case that publications in regional or > organism-specific journals are automatically assumed to be of lower > quality. It is more likely the case that the scope of the article and > the intended audience is simply narrower. I've always been perplexed at > how some people view publication in smaller journals to mean the science > or research is less rigorous, or the quality of writing poorer. It is > very likely true that most ecologists fit into a finer speciality > beneath the broad topic of ecology and, correspondingly, have research > and data on entomology, botany, ornithology, etc. that are equal in > rigor to their "bigger picture" manuscripts but perhaps less deserving > of publication before a broad audience. Should they be penalized for > taking the initiative to publish their data? I have alternatively heard > it argued that we have an obligation to treat all our data as important > and to publish them with consideration and diligence, provided the data > are accurate and the methods appropriate. > > In contrast, when I review a CV where a person has three major > publications, each separated by 2- or 3-year intervals where they > haven't published, I often wonder if they have trouble remaining focused > and productive or if they have had difficulty carrying their field > research to fruition. > > Thanks for any additional perspective, > Brian > > Brian D. Todd > The University of Georgia > Savannah River Ecology Laboratory > Drawer E > Aiken, SC 29802 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/staff/BTodd.htm > office: 803.725.0422 > fax: 803.725.3309 > > > >>> "Dr. Gary Grossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/23/2007 9:25 AM >>> > I agree with everything that Susan Kephart said - it's the "meat and > potatoes" of a vita that get you the interview. The one exception > would be > if you're applying for jobs at small colleges where the open position > may be > the only ecologist in the dept. However, in those cases it probably > would > be best to put the relevant info in your application letter. Also > your > letters of reference should be commenting on the importance and > relevance of > your pubs. Finally, I'll bring up my pet peeve the "In Preparation" > section. Frankly, I don't think that I've served on a search committee > in > which jokes weren't made about the vita's that had 1-2 publications and > then > a list of 5+ mss. "in preparation". If you don't have it in ms. form > so > that you can send it to the search committee with your application, > then > don't put it on your vita. By contrast, your application letter would > be an > appropriate place to describe your publication strategy for your > dissertation work, but do it in a way that the committee can see that > you're > not bsing. For example, a throwaway line like "these studies should > result > in 4 major publications in international journals" is meaningless in > comparison to several lines describing the content of each future paper > and > where you might send them. The truth is most anything that appears to > be > "padding" on a vita will elicit a negative response from some members > of a > search committee, although what constitutes padding will vary among > members. Finally, I would make one minor comment on Susan's post > regarding > having lots of small papers. Although search committee's like to see > a > graduate student that publishes, if you have too many short papers then > it > may appear that you're more interested in numbers of publications > rather > than producing fewer high quality publications. This would certainly > be a > negative impression to leave the search committee with. IMO, most R1 > institutions would favor a candidate with three papers in major > journals > like Ecology, Oecologia, Am. Nat. etc. over someone with 10 small > papers all > in regional journals. In conclusion, I would urge graduate students to > work > on their vita and application letter. Those are the first things the > search > committee's see and typically get you from the "pile" into the short > list. > Many searches don't ask for recommendations for applicants who don't > make it > on the short list, so you can't count on those to carry the day. You'd > be > surprised how many applications we see with poorly organized vitas, > grammatical errors in application letters, etc. which result in low > rankings > when evaluated. > > cheers, g2 > > > Gary D. Grossman > > > Distinguished Research Professor - Animal Ecology > Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources > University of Georgia > Athens, GA, USA 30602 > > http://www.arches.uga.edu/~grossman > > Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation > Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology > Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish >
