The h Index of Hewish

This is h = 37, compared with my h = 42. This is calculated from Google scholar with 1829, 453, 318, 258, 185, 181, 172, 152, 111, 144, 119, 140, 80, 97, 110, 99, 90, 93, 98, 88, 60, 74, 85, 63, 67, 64, 55, 40, 54, 47, 43, 38, 48, 41, 35, 42, 33, 38, 39, 35, 30, 32, 30, 32, 30, 22, 18, 14, 16 ……… There are 37 publications cited 37 times or more. Hewish has probably published fifty to a hundred times, accumulated over about sixty six years. He was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1974 with Ryle. This h index is far higher than that of Bell, h = 12. If one does an objective analysis of the artificial controversy whipped up in the wildly irrational campaign for Bell, it all comes down to who realized that the regular scruff found by Bell, with the rest of the group, indicated a pulsating signal from a star (pulsar). Was this Bell alone, Hewish, or the entire group? Hewish was an undergraduate at Gonville and Caius and started his undergraduate work in in the late thirties. He was born in 1924. So by 1968 when the pulsar discovery was published, he had a great amount of experience. I know that if I had discovered something of great importance during my Ph. D., most supervisors would have taken the credit. Mansel Davies however allowed me to publish on my own, and I immediately won three post doctoral Fellowships in tough open competition. Obviously I should have been given a job at Aberystwyth as a tenured research associate. I conclude that the Milner Prize was not necessary, Bell did not consider that she deserved a Nobel Prize. She has been given plenty of kudos, far more than would be expected for someone with an h index of 12. I don’t like the politics of science. Science should be strict Objectivism.

%d bloggers like this: