SCIENTISTS' ASSESSMENT: ARE WE USING THE CORRECT METRICS?

SCIENTISTS' ASSESSMENT: ARE WE USING THE CORRECT METRICS? The use of metrics to evaluate scientists is widespread in the present time, with implications for hiring, fellowships, and research grants. Such fact requires that metrics must be constantly scrutinized to be improved. This work analyzes the use of metrics in the area of chemistry in Brazil and discusses its limitations and shortcomings. The main findings indicate that the use of the impact factor must be complemented by the cited half-life of the journals, and a composite metric named influence factor is proposed, similar to the R-impact. The h-index is not a good metric anymore because does not correct for authorship inflation. The individual h-index (hi), which takes into account fractional counting of citations, is more reliable than the h-index. An analysis on the use of hi-index with randomly selected 15 Brazilian chemists among the top 500 more productive shows an important effect on the ranking order.

Automated summary

This study analyzes the use of metrics in the field of chemistry in Brazil and evaluates its effectiveness. The main findings suggest that the use of impact factor should be supplemented with the cited half-life of journals, and a composite metric called influence factor is proposed. The study also indicates that the h-index is no longer a reliable metric, while the individual h-index is more accurate. Analysis of a subset of the top 500 most productive Brazilian chemists shows that the hi-index significantly affects the ranking order.