Two h-index benchmarks for evaluating the publication performance of medical informatics researchers

Abstract

Background: The h-index is a commonly used metric for evaluating the publication performance of researchers. However, in a multidisciplinary field such as medical informatics, interpreting the h-index is a challenge because researchers tend to have diverse home disciplines, ranging from clinical areas to computer science, basic science, and the social sciences, each with different publication performance profiles. Objective: To construct a reference standard for interpreting the h-index of medical informatics researchers based on the performance of their peers. Methods: Using a sample of authors with articles published over the 5-year period 2006-2011 in the 2 top journals in medical informatics (as determined by impact factor), we computed their h-index using the Scopus database. Percentiles were computed to create a 6-level benchmark, similar in scheme to one used by the US National Science Foundation, and a 10-level benchmark. Results: The 2 benchmarks can be used to place medical informatics researchers in an ordered category based on the performance of their peers. A validation exercise mapped the benchmark levels to the ranks of medical informatics academic faculty in the United States. The 10-level benchmark tracked academic rank better (with no ties) and is therefore more suitable for practical use. Conclusions: Our 10-level benchmark provides an objective basis to evaluate and compare the publication performance of medical informatics researchers with that of their peers using the h-index.