Leo Sher, M.D.

A commentary entitled “Beyond the metric: reassessing the role of the h-index in academic medicine” has recently been published in QJM: An International Journal of Medicine (1).

The commentary critiques the widespread use of the h-index as a primary metric in academic medicine. The authors state that while valued for its simplicity and ability to balance productivity and citation impact, the h-index is commonly used in hiring, promotions, and funding decisions as a marker of sustained scholarly contribution. The authors suggest that the h-index has key limitations: it varies across disciplines, favors senior researchers, and can be manipulated through self-citation and co-authorship practices. It also ignores author contribution, citation quality, and shows inconsistency across databases. Its overuse has contributed to a “publish or perish” culture, sometimes encouraging unethical practices and predatory publishing. Alternative metrics and newer approaches, including altmetrics and qualitative evaluations, attempt to address these issues but remain imperfect. The authors conclude that the h-index should be used cautiously alongside other measures, with greater emphasis on research quality, integrity, and broader impact.

In my view, the h-index is a useful reflection of scientific productivity, as it captures both the quantity of publications and their impact within the scholarly community. Scholars with a high h-index are typically recognized as influential intellectuals whose work has been widely cited and engaged with by peers. Obviously, although the h-index can serve as a valuable indicator, it should not be used as the sole parameter for evaluating scholarly work. A more comprehensive assessment should also consider qualitative factors such as innovation, mentorship, and broader academic or public impact.

Reference

1. Chandra A, Chatterjee R, Mukherjee S, Dasgupta S, Chatterjee N, Pal J. Beyond the metric: reassessing the role of the h-index in academic medicine. QJM. 2026 Mar 1;119(3):181-183. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcaf225.