In responding to Aguinis, Cummings, Ramani, and Cummings' (2020) article in this issue, I reflect on contemporary approaches to measuring and comparing scholarly success, as well as some important dimensions that are ignored in their article. I also summarize prior approaches to such comparative measurement, such as election to membership in the Royal Society and Acad ' emie des Sciences, and indicate that there will always be means of comparing success that will make some happy and others angry. This comparison makes evident that whatever the problems with contemporary indices, there is certainly less bias than in the past. Contemporary indices are part of a longer progression of measurement approaches that will continue to evolve.
展开▼
