PHD Discussions Logo

Ask, Learn and Accelerate in your PhD Research

Question Icon Post Your Answer

Question Icon

2 years ago in Bibliometrics By Sneha

How do I find my true H-index, and why does it differ across Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science?

My Google Scholar H-index is 15, Scopus says 10, and Web of Science says 8. Which one is "right"? Which do I use on my CV or grant application? Why are they so different?

All Answers (3 Answers In All)

By Hitesh Answered 10 months ago

There's no single "true" H-index; it's database-dependent. Google Scholar casts the widest net, indexing preprints, theses, and conference papers, often inflating the count. Scopus and Web of Science are more selective, indexing only reputable journals and conferences, resulting in a more conservative, "curated" number. The differences arise from coverage and indexing lag. For your CV, use the database your field or institution trusts (Biomedicine often uses Scopus; Physical Sciences might use Web of Science). Be transparent: you can list "H-index (Scopus): 10" to specify. For consistency, claim the same source across all documents. The key is not the absolute number, but the trend over time within the same database, which shows your growing impact.

By Puneet Chadha Answered 10 months ago

Altmetrics measure attention and dissemination, not necessarily scholarly impact. They answer "Who is talking about this work?" not "How is it advancing knowledge?" They matter for demonstrating public engagement, policy influence, or teaching uptake. A high altmetric score from news and policy documents can be powerful evidence of societal impact for grant renewals or promotion files focused on engagement. However, they can be gamed and are field-dependent (a genomics preprint will get more tweets than a philosophy monograph). My advice: Use them contextually. Track them to understand your work's reach, and highlight notable altmetrics (e.g., a policy citation) alongside traditional citations. They are a complement, not a substitute, for citation-based metrics. Dismissing them entirely is to ignore the modern reality of how research enters public discourse.

By Puneet Chadha Answered 10 months ago

Altmetrics measure attention and dissemination, not necessarily scholarly impact. They answer "Who is talking about this work?" not "How is it advancing knowledge?" They matter for demonstrating public engagement, policy influence, or teaching uptake. A high altmetric score from news and policy documents can be powerful evidence of societal impact for grant renewals or promotion files focused on engagement. However, they can be gamed and are field-dependent (a genomics preprint will get more tweets than a philosophy monograph). My advice: Use them contextually. Track them to understand your work's reach, and highlight notable altmetrics (e.g., a policy citation) alongside traditional citations. They are a complement, not a substitute, for citation-based metrics. Dismissing them entirely is to ignore the modern reality of how research enters public discourse.

Your Answer