{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists: The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology.
{Author}: Opthof T;Wilde AA;
{Journal}: Neth Heart J
{Volume}: 17
{Issue}: 4
{Year}: Apr 2009
{Factor}: 2.854
{DOI}: 10.1007/BF03086237
{Abstract}: In this brief paper we explore the Hirsch-index together with a couple of other bibliometric parameters for the assessment of the scientific output of 29 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. It appears that even within such a homogeneous group there is large interindividual variability. Although the differences are quite remarkable, it remains undetermined what they mean; at least it is premature to interpret them as differences in scientific quality. It goes without saying that even more prudence is required when different fields of medicine and life sciences are compared (for example within University Medical Centres). Recent efforts to produce an amalgam of scientific 'productivity', 'relevance' and 'viability' as a surrogate parameter for the assessment of scientific quality, as for example performed in the AMC in Amsterdam, should be discouraged in the absence of a firm scientific base. Unfortunately for politicians and 'managers of science' only reading papers and studying are suitable for quality assessment of scientific output. Citations analyses can't substitute that. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:145-54.).