{
  "annotation_id": "cc1bed23-c0bd-4e04-b382-ffe28b4805cb",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:11.170000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:11.170000Z",
  "file_hash": "b627a4e4a5b4bef0547e408092b55804737716aebe046fcb7716ed889a66c624",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "Focusing specifically on physics periodicals, I show that the journal Impact\nFactor is not correlated with Hirsch\u0027s $h$-index. This implies that the Impact\nFactor is not a good measure of research quality or influence because the\n$h$-index is a reflection of peer review, and thus a strong indicator of\nresearch quality. The impact gap between multidisciplinary journals and\nphysics-only journals is significantly reduced when $h$ is used instead of the\nImpact Factor. Additionally, the impact of journals specializing in review\narticles is inherently deflated using $h$ because of the limited number of\nannual publications in such periodicals. Finally, a reordering of the top\nranking journals occurs with $h$ when only the physics articles of\nmultidisciplinary journals are considered, falling more in line with the\naverage physicist\u0027s interpretation of a journal\u0027s prestige.",
    "arxiv_id": "physics/0608183",
    "authors": [
      "Casey W. Miller"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "physics.soc-ph",
      "astro-ph",
      "cond-mat.other",
      "math.HO"
    ],
    "title": "Superiority of the $h$-index over the Impact Factor for Physics",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608183"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "90f40006-8cb3-4834-9d65-33fb323212ab",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}