How Well Do Bibliometric Indicators Correlate With Scientific Eminence? A Comment on Simonton (2016)

Abstract

Citing an earlier study on eminence in psychology, Simonton (2016) argued that associations between measures of scholars’ reputation, scientific productivity, and citation counts are only small to moderate [Simonton, D. K. (2016). Giving credit where credit’s due: Why it’s so hard to do in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 888–892]. However, this reading is based on partial regression coefficients, which underestimate the joint explanatory power of correlated variables. A reanalysis of the original data showed that a composite bibliometric index was substantially associated with reputation (β = 0.70; 46% explained variance). Very similar results were obtained with a newly calculated h index (β = 0.67; 42% explained variance). Although both Simonton’s original analysis and the current reanalysis are inherently limited, the data suggest that the reputation of psychologists tracks their scientific contribution more closely than has been acknowledged in the recent literature.