61–70 of 215 posts
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
You forgot to edit post to link to your own comment.
[Link Test] [/Link Test]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which case you have to ask yourself, are you so brilliant that you’ve found an important topic that no one has considered yet, or have all the brilliant people already figured out that topic isn’t worthy of study? It’s the same with the startup world. If you’re the only one doing a thing, are you brilliant or foolish?
Two economists are walking down the street. One sees a $20 bill and starts to bend over to pick it up. The other economist says "Don't bother - if it were really worth $20, someone else would have picked it up." There's countless numbers of scientists that made great strides working on topics others deemed rediculous. Heck, many of the Nobel prize winners were ridiculed by their colleagues as borderline wack-jobs at…
Do you have any good examples of being considered wack-jobs before their winning?
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
It sucks as a metric but it does have some rough correlation in most cases, and I'm not aware of any better easily measurable metric - if you have one in mind, it'd be great to hear. The alternative of having a bureaucrat "simply judge quality" IMHO is even worse, even less objective, and even more prone to being gamed. The main problem is that there is an objective need (or desire?) by various stakeholders to have s…
The core problem here is that universities think that citation statistics are a useful metric to evaluate the quality of the work of a scientist. There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case or that even the reverse may be the case [1], but this idea refuses to die. [1]
I found this situation regularly when going down the rabbithole of the anti-vaxx or anti-5g people. One "scientist" makes a highly dubious claim, thousands of nutjobs cite this one scientist, "scientist" then goes on to cite articles that cites their work. I'm basically waiting to find Alex Jones cited in a serious article at this point.
People who are working out their ideas far outside the mainstream have no one to cite but them selves. Some are quacks, to be sure, but sometimes a field is just not ready for their work because the utility of the idea is not easily apparent, or because it's perceived to be too risky. A field needs a healthy mix of the the curmudgeonly stubborn thinkers going their way no matter the cost, and those making steady prog…
Sure, but there is no 'pruning of the tree' in case a dead end is reached, so the citations stay allowing the quack to pretend they have more credibility than they do. In fact, the whole idea of these citations is to build credibility where there is none.