A recurring topic of discussion at Scifoo was new/better ways of evaluating scholarship in science (eg personal impact factor, etc). Last week, Nature had an article about the H-index.

It talks about how Jorge Hirsch (the guy who came up with the idea) compared the h-indices of 50 scientists with their actual career performance since the 1980s to see how well the number predicted career success, compared with other metrics like citation counts.

He found that the h-index was a bit more accurate than the # of citations, and much more accurate than the # of publications. The article goes on to say that despite some criticism, the use of the h-index is becoming more popular.

Any responses to the article, and to the H-index in general?