Evaluating a scientist: Part B - The metrics

Lets dive-in into these metrics. Make sure to read Part A

Few key pointers to consider when evaluating a scholarly profile of a scientist, more fairly and effectively:

• Yearly output

• Overall citations

• Impact factors of the journals

• Others to consider: h-index and i10-index

Before digging deeper into this, take a look at the google scholar profile below.

Google Scholar Profile

Yearly output as part of evaluation of a scientist

A scientist’s yearly academic activity is best reflected in their scholarly output, including journal articles, conference proceedings, and review papers. Each serves a distinct purpose:

• Journal Articles

  • These represent original research findings and form the backbone of a scientist’s contributions.

  
  

• Conference Proceedings 

  • These often capture intermediate results and provide a space for peer interaction and early feedback.

    
    

• Review Articles 

  • These deserve special emphasis. These are usually published in two main scenarios:

    
    

    • When a scientist identifies gaps in current understanding and believes a comprehensive review could meaningfully advance the field. For instance, in translational medicine, where clinical trials evolve rapidly, reviews can synthesize outcomes from ongoing and completed trials—providing clarity and direction.

      
      

    • When entering a new field, scientists may publish a review article to build foundational knowledge while contributing new insights, organizing existing literature, and identifying opportunities for innovation.

Overall, a well-rounded scholarly profile includes a mix of these publications, and careful attention should be paid to the context and purpose behind each.

Many individuals pursue alternative career paths after completing their PhD. Some transition into the corporate sector, where the focus shifts from publishing to product development, innovation, and commercialization. Others may move into administrative or leadership roles within academia, industry, or government. In both cases, recent publications may be limited or absent—not due to a lack of expertise, but because their work is no longer centered around traditional research. However, this shift often means they may not be as up-to-date with the latest developments in active research compared to those still engaged in publishing and peer-reviewed scholarship. It’s important to recognize this context when evaluating their academic or scientific relevance.

Citations

As you may already know, every scientific publication includes a section of citations referencing other scholarly work. These citations are quantified and tracked by databases like Clarivate Analytics and platforms such as Google Scholar. While not a perfect metric, citation count generally reflects how influential or widely referenced a particular article is.

Citation norms vary by field—for instance, citation counts tend to be lower in physics, moderate in life sciences, and often highest in engineering. However, it’s important to interpret these numbers with nuance. For example, large-scale collaborative studies involving 20 or more authors often result in widely cited publications due to their interdisciplinary scope and collective impact. These articles typically span multiple STEM domains and may receive high citation counts that reflect breadth more than individual contribution. When evaluating a scientist, it’s essential to consider both the quantity and context of citations rather than relying on raw numbers alone.

Impact factors

Each academic journal is assessed using several metrics, with impact factor being one of the most widely referenced. Assigned annually by Clarivate Analytics, the impact factor reflects the average number of citations received by articles published in that journal. Importantly, this metric applies to the journal as a whole—not to individual articles. Clarivate's methodology, though proprietary, takes into account various elements such as citation patterns, publication frequency, and indexing criteria. As a result, journals are ranked and perceived differently across disciplines, often influencing where researchers choose to submit their work.

Despite its limitations, the impact factor is often treated as a proxy for a journal’s influence or “popularity” in its field. Generally, a journal with an impact factor below 3 is considered lower-tier, though there are many respected, long-standing journals with impact factors under that threshold. It’s also worth noting that most conference proceedings do not carry impact factors, even if they are peer-reviewed and reputable. As with citation counts, impact factors should be interpreted in context—especially across disciplines with different publishing and citation norms.

Other factors

In addition to the above mentioned parameters, other widely used author-level metrics include the h-index (Hirsch index) and the i10-index. These benchmarks have become increasingly embedded in the scholarly publishing ecosystem as tools to assess a researcher's influence and productivity over time.

The h-index is defined as the highest number h such that a researcher has published h papers, each of which has been cited at least h times. This index balances both quantity (number of publications) and quality (citations), making it a popular metric across disciplines.

The i10-index, developed by Google Scholar, simply counts the number of a researcher’s publications that have received at least 10 citations. While more straightforward, it is primarily used within Google Scholar profiles and is less common outside of that platform.

Together, these metrics offer a snapshot of a scientist's academic impact, though they too should be interpreted in the context of the research field.

As a high school student beginning your research journey, it’s essential to do your due diligence before approaching or starting work with a scientist. Take time to understand their research focus, read a few of their recent publications, and ensure their interests align with your passion and goals. Finding the right mentor is not just about credentials—it’s about shared curiosity and a commitment to learning.