H-index circlejerk

Time for a dick measuring contest. Post your h-index here. If you don't know what an h-index is or you don't have one, you lose.

Mine is 2. If I don't end up bottom tier in this thread I'm going to be sorely disappointed Veeky Forums.

Is this board populated only by amateurs? I expected more.

Suck a dick.

This board only consists of autistic highschoolers and undergrads. Barely anybody here published something.

That's what I expected, but I was hoping to be proven wrong.

My h-index is 5 right now but it'll be 6 real soon, I published a paper earlier this year that's starting to get citations. I'm a PhD student in my final year.

Yes! Real scientists!

Just getting started. Got a paper out last month, so I should be up to 3 before too long.

Dick measuring...aah, I see! The h-index correlates with the size of your dick in inches.

> The h-index correlates with the size of your dick in inches.
Indeed it does. Dick size = h-index * 4 inches

gotta git gud

When looking for undergrad research should I look for high h index professors, medium, or low (typically new ones?) Same question for picking MS/PhD advisors if I get that far.

Look for people who personally and professionally inspire you. And can make time for you.

Out of curiosity, which fields?

I'm this user and I'm in Bioengineering

>tfw 1
i-it'll be 2 if the guy I contacted cites my new paper
Why must science be a constant hunt for (you)s

>Why must science be a constant hunt for (you)s
I feel like the peer review system is sometimes abused for this as well.
>"Nice work, but there was this paper which is totally relevant to what you developed. It should definitely be cited in your paper."

>"Nice work, but there was this paper which is totally relevant to what you developed. It should definitely be cited in your paper."
True, though (in principle) having multiple reviewers should combat this conflict of interest somewhat. You're always free to refuse suggestions by reviewers. Or in the worst case, petition the editor to take the reviewer off your paper if they're being needlessly difficult and counterproductive.

On the other hand, sometimes you do genuinely miss relevant papers that you should have consulted and cited. I've had it happen, but so far I've been very lucky with my reviewers.

Well, should you have cited it?

so if my works have gotten more citations than the total number of my published research articles, what makes me that?

fukken weird way of ranking
How is this indicative of how good a scientist is???

>1st paper has 34 citations
>2nd has 8
>3rd has 8
>4th has 8
>5th has 0

so what's my H now?

yeah right, many scientists can cite their own papers easily

this system is so easy to manipulate, that if it was a woman, it would sleep with each of you guys

I'm and I'm in chemistry, surface science.

I'm not criticizing, I wanna know
>just a weird ranking system
Take the number that is the number of papers up to and including the paper that has the same number or less citations when the papers are ranked in order of decreasing citations

>1

Probably still puts me in the elite minority here.

how many papers do you have?

2 in google scholar but I actually have a bunch more that I don't really remember from an internship I did in a research lab. I designed and built the testbed my boss still uses and I made some small but important contributions to the process, so he still puts me as 3rd or 4th author on a lot of his publications. Apparently he's even writing a chapter of a textbook that'll have my name on it somewhere. I'm not sure why most of it doesn't show up in google scholar but I'm in engineering so I don't really care enough to find out.

Really dislike h index and using citations as a measure of worth. It debases knowledge and shifts some people into paper writing mills basically looking for (You)s. I mean would Cantor have published his controversial work if he knew he could get more assured prestige from something more conventional?