Notes: FA, first author; E/SA, exclusive or single (E/S) author.
It is important to note that the high output of FA (including E/SA) papers is a reflection of the true scientific level of S&R. However, currently non-academic physicians or medical doctors had a poor capacity to publish and a low productivity due to limited time or little interest in undertaking research.13 Therefore, future scientific evaluations should not only focus on the quality of papers, but also on the number of FA (including E/SA) papers, in order to encourage S&R to actively output more scientific achievements. In this regard, the HFA-index is a better and more comprehensive indicator for scientific evaluation of S&R.
Generally, according to the surnames of two scholars (Hirsch & Hu), the HFA-index, can be used as a reference for the h-index, which can also be referred to as the “Hirsch-Hu”-index (H-H-index) or h2-index (Table 1), or corrected h-index (the Hc-index). It is important to note that while the h-index may benefit the corresponding authors, the h2-index is definitely beneficial for the FA (including E/SA). It is an emerging, encouraging, and excellent indicator for more accurate scientific evaluation, as it encourages all S&R to output more scientific works and innovations. In conclusion, it is time to use the h2-index, which includes the number of FA (including E/SA) papers, as a crucial indicator for scientific evaluation of S&R, in order to encourage more active scientific outputs and innovations.
In fact, the first author is usually a vital inventor of biotechnology (e.g., single-particle profiler)14 in the biomedical research. Of course, a crucial hallmark of innovation in the biopharmaceutical industry (e.g., drug candidates discovered and approvals)15 may indicate the performance and the magnitude of impact of S&R. And a comprehensive citation map of biomedical patents is a good indicator16 for evaluating productivity, diversity and translational impact of S&R. All in all, the more innovative medical products there are, the more demands there are in regulatory sciences, particularly in precision health,17 thus, the scientific community must help public policy-makers to support both innovation and regulations.18
As we know, innovative studies on polygenic risk scores (PRSs)19,20 benefit precision cardiovascular health in global populations. Moreover, innovations in genomic medicine,21 such as genetic screening, rare disease diagnosis and molecular therapy, may open new applications for genomics in clinical practice, for example, the genetic architecture of coronary artery calcification22 and specific therapeutics and preventions of spontaneous coronary artery dissection.23 In fact, innovative strategies are also vital for neuroscience research. For example, noninvasive stimulation of deep brain structures may enhance learning skills,24and a combining stimulation of Climbing fiber and Purkinje cells provides essential instructive signals for associative cerebellar learning.25
All in all, these innovative studies mainly from the first authors will improve global health. It’s time to use the h2-index, which covering the number of FA (including E/SA) papers for scientific evaluation, so as to promote and incentivize more innovative scientific achievements.