Impact, H, and Authorship

摘要

Ruscio and colleagues (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) have done us a great service by systematically comparing indices of scholarly impact. Three aspects of their work are particularly valuable. First, their assessment of the proliferating collection of metrics, whose development has become something of a cottage industry, is comprehensive in scope. Second, their evaluation of the merits of the 22 metrics employs a broad range of criteria— pragmatic as well as intrinsic, and relevant to fairness as well as accuracy—rather than focusing narrowly on scientometric considerations. As they correctly note, these metrics have consequences in the real world and have to be fit for that purpose. Third, Ruscio et al. have conducted two substantial empirical investigations on which their conclusions rest. The resulting evaluation should be influential well beyond the disciplinary boundaries of psychology.