@drjulie_b Studies of this are both depressing and useful to know:
https://t.co/MsM6VgsI1z
https://t.co/tUjAWJzWxJ
There are probably more recent examples too.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The h-index is bad
And a flawed value predictor of you
#AcademicValentines #AcademicValentine
Here's why https://t.co/S3IL4s0tel
https://t.co/GnpAizLqot
https://t.co/EMohlySgdZ
https://t.co/SyybqAbEY4
https://t.co/8PacDoMipA
@jrossibarra @BraybrookSA @SpicyBotrytis @rellanalvarez @facette_lab @ThePlantCell @Biokid001 @ASPB Oops sorry. I thought the conversation was about this paper https://t.co/yCFfjwnVr4
@Dr_Mangani_D @jonykipnis But h index also relies on number of papers published... so people from larger labs will have more “opportunities”, right? During @VirusesImmunity lab meeting last year, we talked about https://t.co/plOvfhnkFk and we all had a great talk. what are your guys’ thoughts?
@itjohnstone @chrisdc77 @improvingpsych A few ideas: @thePeerJ published an article, "Prediction of junior faculty success in biomedical research..." and there is a good @MBoCjournal published a perspective about article-level assessment. Hope this helps!
https://t.co/huVLhZxYuI
https://t.co/Q0UXnpAXDs
"Publishing as mid- or even first author in only one high-impact journal was poorly correlated with future success."
Interesting, @DORAssessment.
https://t.co/HiG4PT9xFj
@jessicapolka According to this https://t.co/gS0lLd8LGy it really seems to be the number of 1st author publications predicting academic success. Rather than impact factor or h-index. So aside from our moral obligation to share our findings: Yep, get your work out there. https://t.co/DFRqhuXiom