Dennis,
I think you are reaffirming something else.
The arguments are absurd.
a. People whose work is widely cited, because it is good,
get more grant dollars. Presumably, if mary has 1 citation
and a single $1000 grant, you'd think she was really outstanding.
By gosh, she's really producing bang for the buck!
b. Your citation calculations are incorrect, but represent
an uncanny rigidity regarding the issue of citation counts.
In other words, by the most tortured "logic" imaginable,
you reach the conclusion that immensely influential scientists,
doing a high volume of work, aren't really influential, because,
well, well, it just couldn't be! But it is!
Regarding the citations -- they were gathered over 12 years,
as clearly stated in the report, from 1989-2000. So your
calculations are off roughly by a factor of 12.
But at least you didn't start doing randomization tests.
All the best,
Jim Steiger
On 15 Feb 2001 17:55:08 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>At 10:42 PM 2/15/01 +0000, Irving Scheffe wrote:
>>
>>
>>Suppose we have
>>
>>
>> Citations Grant$
>>
>>Mary 1051 4 Million
>>Fred 12000+ 23 Million
>
>let's think about this ... just as another view of course
>
>if we are really considering citations as a proxy for performance ... then,
>by my calculations ... mary gets $38059 PER cite in grants ... while fred
>only gets $19167 PER cite in grants ... thus, in this world view ... mary
>is getting for MIT much more buck for the cite
>
>if fred is doing all that great ... then proportionately he should be
>bringing in MORE per cite ...
>
>just another view of why cites is a very poor indicator ... of performance,
>quality, etc.
>
>and, just as an aside ... let's think about just what 12000 cites would
>mean??? could there possibly be THAT many people ... THAT interested ... in
>the work of fred during the year?
>
>on average, this would mean that about 33 people a DAY are citing his work
>... every day of the year ... in order to "cite" ... you have to "write"
>... and, it is hard to fathom that there could possibly be that much
>writing activity going on where fred is actively on the minds of the writers
>
>not saying there is enough for mary either ... i am just reemphasizing how
>uninformative these "values" are
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>dennis roberts, penn state university
>educational psychology, 8148632401
>http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
>
>
>=================================================================
>Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
>the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
>=================================================================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
