The H-index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication impact of experimental scientists.

The article examines the limitations of the H-index as a research metric for evaluating the impact of experimental scientists. It presents a case study of six scientists in the biomolecular sciences, comparing their H-index and average citations per year. The study finds that a scientist without major awards, referred to as Scientist X, has a higher H-index and average citations per year than prize-winning scientists, primarily due to publishing review and perspective articles instead of conducting original experimental research. The article proposes a new metric, the EH-index, which would weigh citation counts based on the type of research contribution, specifically focusing on citations from experimental work. The author argues that the H-index fails to distinguish between original research studies and literature-based ones, and suggests further investigation into the impact of overpublishing secondary source articles on research metrics. [Extracted from the article]