Scientific careers depend largely on the evaluation of one’s merit. Yet scientists agree that the measurement of merit is quite a complex endeavor. Some indicators exist, such as Hirsch’s well-known h index, but none can fully capture the complexity of the notion of merit. We propose that the h factor should be complemented with additional useful measurements: the t, o, u, and g indexes.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
2.
AndersonB. R.FeistG. J. (2017). Transformative science: A new index and the impact of non-funding, private funding, and public funding. Social Epistemology, 31, 130–151.
3.
BernsteinD. A.UptonD. (2010). Bravery and creativity through the curriculum. In UptonD.TrappA. (Eds.), Teaching psychology in higher education (pp. 105–133). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
4.
FeistG. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic science: A dialectic of scientific fame. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 893–898.
5.
HirschJ. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 16569–16572.
6.
RuscioJ.SeamanF.D’OrianoC.StremloE.MahalchikK. (2012). Measuring scholarly impact using modern citation-based indices. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10, 123–146.
7.
SimontonD. K. (2002). Great psychologists and their times: Scientific insights into psychology’s history. Washington, DC: APA Books.
8.
SternbergR. J. (2016). “Am I famous yet?” Judging scholarly merit in psychological science: An introduction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 877–881.
9.
SternbergR. J.GordeevaT. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential?Psychological Science, 7, 69–75.
10.
SternbergR. J.KaufmanJ. C.PretzJ. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contribution. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
