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.