IMO the definition should be modified to exclude self-citations. Scientists like to cite their earlier work (and should, if it is on the same topic), but the h-index as currently defined temps spamming your papers with self-cites just to drive your index up.
That wouldn't work. Where do you draw the line? Do you not count citations from papers with the same first-author? If you do that then savvy scientists will rotate authorship on papers from their lab. Do you make it so that no citations count when there are any common authors between the citer and citee paper? That's even more unworkable considering how much scientists move around and collaborate across institutions. The only smart thing for a scientist to do then would be to strategically omit authors off a paper so that they can then cite it in the future. Even if you implemented this harshest rule, scientists would still pressure their friends to cite their papers when even vaguely related to the friends' research.
ALL 'clinical trials' are actually HUMAN experiments, the only reason they do animal experiments, even though they are useless, is because most people are as stupid and gullible as the Slashdot crowd
Not all research is clinical research. We gained a lot of knowledge about how the visual system works in the brain from neurophysiology experiments performed on cats (check out Colin Blakemore's work for that, and you can have a look at some of his explanation for animal research at the same time).
If the government is giving pubic $ to companies for research
It's college students who fund themselves by stripping, not professors.
We don't fuck for fuck sake, we fuck for the climax. Without the climax, fucking would be fucking boring.
This is amusing because the Slashdot sterotype totally applies (a virgin who is very opinionated regarding things he knows nothing about).
You will have many recoverable tape errors.