Do you think that H index reflect experience?

I do not because the pressure to publish has increased last years. The quality and the true expertise of the researchers it is not well reflected in the number of publications and citations. Hence, it's more related to the quality of your contact list and friends across the academic world. Just my personal opinion.

 I think it is not. Although H-index can reflect the interest of other researchers in a published manuscript, it will only represent a measure of how much a paper is in the mainstream of current knowledge. If a paper opens up novel avenues of knowledge,  it will not be cited:  no one will quote an absolute novelty. Relying on the H-index means systematically removing papers opens up a whole new field,  likely to be cited very little,  at least in the short term. We need to decide whether published data are legitimized or not, and if it does it does not matter how much it is cited. We don't want "aligned" scientists, but scientists who make discoveries. 

Yes, experience that it reflects could signal research experience, or collaboration/networking, international exposure and collaborations especially seem to result in high H index (some of my serious, meaningful publications remain poorly cited but papers where I have foreign coauthors show rapid increase in citations and tend to unfairly increase the H index. Over a period of time, authors tend to increase foreign collaborations - so H index might not necessarily reflect research experience but does reflect increase in experience that increases h index (increase in international collaborations, team science etc).  

i do not think that it is a clear reflection of quality of research. It is particularly true for humanities where researchers are invested in papers but also in producing books which are not usually registered to build the H index.

 

Normally yes. The more you publish, the more experienced you are considered to be. However, there are some specialists in "reviews" publications. These publications are usually produced by a few researchers in their offices. They are not based on results from their labs, and some produce a large number of reviews per year. It may be useful to others, but it's unlikely to reflect the experience of the researcher. 

Somewhat. Generally, researchers with more years of experience tend to have higher H-indices, as they have had more time to publish and get citations. But this correlation is far from perfect. 

I think yes because H-index can reflect the interesting of other researchers to read and benefit from published manuscripts.  

he H index is an important measure of a person's contribution to the scientific literature. However, the H index alone does not provide sufficient evidence about a person's success. The H index is a metric that combines the number of publications and the number of citations received by an author. It has been used to evaluate research performance at the institutional level as well. While the H index is a useful metric, it has some limitations. For example, the H index does not take into account the quality or impact of the publications, only the quantity. To address this limitation, researchers have proposed new metrics such as the influence-primed H index, which weights citations by how many times a reference is mentioned in the citing paper.

It is basically a function of the number of papers published irrespective of their quality. So in a way, it is directly related to "experience"...

I do believe so, as it directly related to the years since first publication