From the Inventor of the H-index
My third-year students are busily engaged with a Computational Physics class test so I thought I’d occupy myself for a few minutes by sharing an interesting little paper that appeared on the arXiv a few weeks ago. The paper is by Jorge Hirsch, the inventor of the (in)famous H-index.
Here is the abstract:
A magnetic field H is expelled from the interior of a metal becoming superconducting. Everybody thinks the phenomenon is perfectly well understood, particularly scientists with the highest H-index think that. I don’t. I will explain why I believe that without Holes, conceptualized by Heisenberg in 1931 fifty years after Hall had first detected them in some metals, neither magnetic field expulsion nor anything else about superconductivity can be understood. I have been a Heretic in the field of superconductivity for over 30 years, and believe that Hans’ little story about the emperor perfectly captures the essence of the situation. Here is (a highly condensed version of) the wHole story.
You will see that, despite the liberal sprinkling of letters H, the paper isn’t ostensibly about the H-index, but it does contain some interesting comments thereon, including:
I proposed the H-index hoping it would be an objective measure of scientific achievement. By and large, I think this is believed to be the case. But I have now come to believe that it can also fail spectacularly and have severe unintended negative consequences. I can understand how the sorcerer’s apprentice must have felt.
I think the opinion of a scientist about the value of the H-index roughly speaking divides according to whether a said scientist has a big one or a small one. Those lucky enough to have a high H-index probably think it is fine, while those who have a low value can probably find a reason why it is flawed. My own H-index (42 according to Google Scholar) is mediocre, which I reckon is a fair reflection of my status.
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
March 5, 2020 at 8:17 pm
I think you have done pretty well – regardless of whether your h index shows so or not. Mediocre is not the right word, I think.
March 6, 2020 at 9:09 am
Just before reading your post, I read the latest post in Shtetl-Optimized, a blog about quantum computing. On the h-index, the author said ‘Alas, Goodhart’s Law states that “as soon as a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”’ which is at least a nice soundbite, and probably has some truth to it for things like h-index, school league tables, etc.
March 6, 2020 at 10:07 pm
Regrettably, aspects of success metrics are the norm. In a way, Lee Smolin hits on this in his book “The Trouble With Physics”.
October 11, 2022 at 8:41 pm
31 months later I’ve just come across a recommendation for this guy’s theory of superconductivity and have read it. Here it is in a nutshell:
https://jorge.physics.ucsd.edu/hole.html
and you need to click also on the embedded link “Why BCS theory is incorrect”. He has the advantage that a single theory is capable of explaining low-temperature superconductivity and high-temperature superconductivity. I would love to see a no-holds-barred debate betwen Hirsch and the ‘superconductivity establishment’, for he seems to have some good points that are simply ignored. But he lays too much stress on the Meissner effect, which is says is the most fundamental property of superconductors. I thought superconductivity was.