A better measure of academic impact would be number of citations minus 100 times number of publications. (Notice the minus - pubs are a cost.)
-
“Successful exploration is what gets the most citations by far” - yes, in the current system. I don’t think that assumption will hold once we switch to your proposed system.
No, it will happen more, because my metric strongly discourages incremental research (i.e., papers with less than 100 citations).
-
-
I think it would lead to bubble formation - consensus approved methods would be explored and consensus claims would be confirmed to gain citations. Just like deep learning. Other methods that might be better would have little incentive to be pursued.
-
Research will suffer when citations become the goal rather than a measurement yardstick. The goal should be pursuit of truth and knowledge, and the measure of impact should be proportional to that. I don’t think citations is it.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law …
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
** what gets incremental citations in today’s system will start getting high citation counts under the new system.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
*** then you’ll have to tweak your metric to citations - 1000 times publication count. And iteratively continue on that path.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.