Evaluating a scientist: Part A - Scholar Profile

We live in an increasingly interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary world, where traditional academic boundaries are constantly being redefined. It’s not uncommon for someone who began their journey in theoretical physics to later find themselves working in fields like bioinformatics or fintech. This evolution is often driven by the natural overlap of knowledge—concepts like the Random Walk, rooted in physics, are foundational in financial modeling, while programming skills developed in physics are equally essential in computational biology. As individuals explore new interests and their careers mature, shifts in professional direction become not only possible but often inevitable. Take, for example, mechanical engineers who start with a focus on design and biocompatibility; many eventually immerse themselves in clinical environments and surgical device development. In doing so, they acquire a deep understanding of surgical procedures and collaborate closely with medical professionals. These engineers often go on to lead interdisciplinary teams that work at the intersection of engineering, medicine, and diagnostics—driving innovation by translating clinical needs into technological solutions. This blending of disciplines is no longer the exception—it’s the future of innovation.

Google Scholar profile of Shashaanka Ashili

Scholarly evaluation of a professor or scientist can vary significantly across disciplines. In the natural sciences—such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology—conferences often serve primarily as platforms for sharing preliminary results and networking with peers. While some conference submissions are technically peer-reviewed, they are generally not held in the same regard as peer-reviewed journal publications and are rarely used as key metrics for academic evaluation. In contrast, the engineering community takes a different approach. Few conferences organized by established professional bodies such as IEEE, ASME, and others are typically more competitive and peer-reviewed. The proceedings from these conferences are often published and treated similarly to journal articles, sometimes even carrying impact factors. As a result, in engineering fields, these conference proceedings are considered valid scholarly outputs and can play a significant role in evaluating a researcher’s academic contributions through measurable and recognized metrics.

In such a complex and dynamic environment, comparing scientists from life sciences with those from engineering is often like comparing apples to oranges. Each discipline operates under its own norms, publication standards, and measures of impact. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate researchers within the context of their specific field. A one-size-fits-all approach not only leads to inaccurate assessments but also overlooks the unique contributions each scientist makes.

That said, here are a few key pointers to consider when evaluating a scholarly profile of a scientist, more fairly and effectively:

• Yearly output - number of articles published every year.

• Overall citations so far

• Impact factors of the journals they published in

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

Yes, there are not perfect metrics. There is valid criticism within the scientific community about these metrics. However, these will provide some direction when you are evaluating a scientist and making a decision on whether to work with them.