(It’d be a case of mistaking a measure for the real object of concern, and thereby intervening on something that makes the metric a worse measure of the initial object of concern and subsequently less valuable.)
Show this thread
Here’s an argument I find odd mainly because I lack sense of what the normative pattern for citations should be? Guess: citations should track engagement. If so it suggests interventions on citations (breaking engagement link) would be counter productive. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/04/27/racial-exclusions-scholarly-citations-opinion …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Given that citation practices (and indeed authorship practices) vary wildly across disciplines, I'd be sceptical of any specific intervention at this level.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tracking engagement is too weak; it should also (a) acknowledge priority and (b) known objections.
-
Hmm I think citations should track engagement and there should be a norm to the effect that one engage with important known objections. (Not all known objections, judgement required.) That said I agree that acknowledging priority is important - and may come apart from engagement.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.