Citing an earlier study on eminence in psychology, Simonton (2016) argued that associations between measures of scholars’ reputation, scientific productivity, and citation counts are only small to moderate [Simonton, D. K. (2016). Giving credit where credit’s due: Why it’s so hard to do in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 888–892]. However, this reading is based on partial regression coefficients, which underestimate the joint explanatory power of correlated variables. A reanalysis of the original data showed that a composite bibliometric index was substantially associated with reputation (β = 0.70; 46% explained variance). Very similar results were obtained with a newly calculated h index (β = 0.67; 42% explained variance). Although both Simonton’s original analysis and the current reanalysis are inherently limited, the data suggest that the reputation of psychologists tracks their scientific contribution more closely than has been acknowledged in the recent literature.

西蒙顿（Simonton，2016年）引用了一项关于心理学卓越性的较早研究，认为学者声誉，科学生产力和被引用次数之间的关联很小或中等[Simonton，DK（2016）。在应得的信用额中给予信用：为什么在心理学中如此难做到。心理科学观点，11，888–892]。但是，此读数基于偏回归系数，该系数低估了相关变量的联合解释能力。对原始数据的重新分析显示，综合文献目录索引与信誉密切相关（β= 0.70； 46％的解释方差）。使用新计算的h获得了非常相似的结果指数（β= 0.67; 42％解释方差）。尽管西蒙顿的原始分析和当前的再分析都固有地受到限制，但数据表明，心理学家的声誉比最近的文献更紧密地追踪了他们的科学贡献。