
H-index: editors behaving badly? - luu
http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2015/02/editors-behaving-badly.html
======
shubb
So much importance placed on a single metric, maybe not even related to the
candidates actual job.

It's sad there doesn't seem to be a 'teaching track' in the UK (where this
article originates). I remember the best teaching lecturer during my undergrad
being fired for his low research output.

For the most part, undergraduates don't need to be taught by great
researchers. I mean, it's inspiring, but we all know leading figures get PHD
students to put together their course anyway.

The department needed a high average researcher quality to increase the chance
of future funding. That would indicate they believe research subsidises
teaching.

I'm not sure how this works, as UK students pay about £24 per hour of lecture
time, and there are probably 100 of them in the room. Research must be really
profitable if it can make more than £2400 an hour.

An interesting article on the American side:
[http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/wh...](http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/who-
subsidizes-whom/)

~~~
CJefferson
Actually, as far as I know teaching subsides research at most (if not all) UK
universities.

------
CJefferson
When hiring committees start (at least partly) measuring the quality of
academics by a single number, it is in the interests of academics to maximise
that number.

Some take it too far in serious misconduct, others will undertake 'tit-for-
tat' referencing with friends, who previously they might have referenced
slightly less.

When google h-index's measure takes self-citations into account, it is very
tempting to cite one's own papers, particularly those which are "on the cusp"
of increasing one's own h-index.

