My complete review:

Take Off Your Mask

I genuinely appreciate the dedicated effort put into developing a new approach for measuring citations. However, I respectfully disagree with the effectiveness of the h-index as a reliable metric, and I believe that proposing a new metric that closely resembles it may not address the existing flaws adequately. Furthermore, I strongly advocate for the inclusion of qualitative measurements alongside quantitative ones, as I believe a comprehensive evaluation should consider both aspects.

The h-index is a simplified measure that counts the number of papers that have been published by a researcher, and the number of times those papers have been cited. However, it is a flawed measure because it does not directly take into account the quality of the papers that have been published. A researcher could have a high h-index by publishing a large number of papers that are not very well-cited, or by publishing a small number of papers that are very well-cited.

I believe that it is important to include qualitative measurements in addition to quantitative measurements. Qualitative measurements can be used to assess the impact of a researcher's work, and the quality of the work that has been published. For example, qualitative measurements could be used to assess the impact of a researcher's work on other researchers, or the impact of a researcher's work on the field of science.

I believe that a new measure of citation should include both quantitative and qualitative measurements. This would allow for a more accurate and reliable assessment of a researcher's impact.

I would like to suggest that the new measure of citation should include the following qualitative measurements:

• The impact of the researcher's work on other researchers.
• The impact of the researcher's work on the field of science.
• The quality of the researcher's work.

With the advancement of technology, we now have the capability to utilize applications such as Open Knowledge Maps, Scite, or Vosviewer to explore the context of citations, their interconnectedness within a network, and the specific keywords employed in the citing manuscripts.

I believe that these qualitative measurements would provide a more accurate and reliable assessment of a researcher's impact than the h-index alone.

About the #TakeOffYourMask I would like to introduce the idea of a hashtag called #TakeOffYourMask as a symbol of my commitment to challenging the reliance on prestige-based assessments, such as the h-index, and embracing a more authentic representation of our research endeavors.

1. The H-index is a measure of scientific output, but it has some limitations. The H-index is a measure of the number of papers that have been cited at least that many times.
2. A new measure of scientific output is needed that addresses the limitations of the H-index. The H-index has some limitations, such as the fact that it does not take into account the quality of the papers or the impact of the citations.
3. A new measure of scientific output is needed that addresses the limitations of the H-index. This new measure could be based on factors such as the number of citations, the position of the author on the author list, and the number of authors on the paper.

This new measure could be implemented using artificial intelligence.

• Consensus among publishers, researchers, and funders is crucial for moving beyond the H-index and implementing new approaches in evaluating scientific achievement.
• Proposals for a new scoring system involve assigning scores to each author based on their contribution to an article, taking into account factors like the number of authors, position in the author list, number of citations received (excluding self-citations), and the impact factor of the citing journals.
• While this approach may appear complex, it is feasible through automated indexing systems and could address the limitations of the current evaluation system.

summary from introduction: - The H-index is a metric that measures the scientific output of researchers. - It is calculated by counting the number of articles with at least as many citations as the researcher's H-index. - The H-index is used to evaluate researchers' professional success and can impact research funding. - However, the H-index has several limitations, including: - It does not consider the actual contribution of each author. - It does not consider the number of authors. - It assigns equal weight to citations by articles published in low-impact journals and citations by articles published in high-impact journals. - Articles with number of citations lower than the H-index do not contribute to it, as well as citations exceeding the H-index. - Several alternative scoring systems have been proposed, but none of them have simultaneously addressed all of the limitations of the H-index.

My summary:

The paper discusses the limitations of the H-index as a measure of researchers' success and proposes a novel method for a fairer assessment of scientific impact. The proposed method takes into account the actual contribution of each author, the number of authors, their overall scientific production, and the scientific quality of citing articles. The method involves distributing the score of an article among its authors based on the number of citations and the weight of these citations. The overall score for an author is the sum of scores obtained for each authored article. The paper suggests that a better, merit-based proxy measure is warranted and can be achieved, although a perfect score without shortcomings is a chimera. Qualitative judgments are also necessary to adequately represent authors' scientific achievements.

Wellisch, Hans H. The PRECIS Index System: Principles, Applications, and Prospects : Proceedings of the International PRECIS Workshop, October 15-17, 1976. Illustrated edition. New York: Wilson, 1977.

https://www.amazon.com/PRECIS-index-system-applications-International/dp/0824206118

Reagan’s Note Card Treasures<br /> by John H. Fund <br /> at August 10, 2011, 12:00 AM<br /> (accessed:: 2023-02-23 12:25:06)

archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20151017020314/http://spectator.org/articles/37399/reagans-note-card-treasures

John H. Fund wrote that while he was a a 15-year old high school student, Reagan taught him how he arranged his index card-based notes to tailor-make a speech for almost any audience. In 2011, Fund said he still used a variation of Reagan's system for his own speeches.

Unbeknownst to me, I've got a Semantic Scholar author page with an h-index of 4...

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/C.-Aldrich/34838486

persepsi bahwa sitasi menunjukkan dampak atau arti dari suatu makalah, harus direvisi, karena di sisi lainnya, persepsi ini telah terbukti merusak kehidupan akademik. turunan dari persepsi ini adalah bahwa peneliti dengan jumlah sitasi (diwakili angka indeks H) yang banyak akan dianggap lebih bereputasi dibanding yang jumlah sitasinya sedikit.