obviously irving scheffe likes citation rates (or lives with them
comfortably) ... and dennis roberts does not
we can have these back and forth discussions till we are blue in the face i
guess ... but, i seriously doubt that it will change your mind nor mine
ok, so you thought my looking out the window example was way off mark ...
fine, i will accept that
BUT, i ask the following ... and i hope that you won't put this in some
nonsensical category
you stated:
=======
No, not at all. How could you possibly equate citation counts based
on the way HUNDREDS of other scientists have reacted to the work of
these individuals over TWELVE YEARS ...
=======
NOTE: CITATION IS FOR A PERSON, RIGHT? CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN THEN ... ??
since we don't have group tenure or group promotion or group salary
increments ... then we have to be talking about ONE person at a time
how do you know that over 12 years ... and the 12000 citation rate that was
previously mentioned ... that it involved HUNDREDS of other scientists???
please relate to me and the rest of the edstat group ... how you deduce
this .... FROM THE 12000 CITATION NUMBER ... over the 12 years?
it would be helpful to show the output statistics from the citation rate
site or sites or databases that you have access to ... that allows you to
make this assertion
and more specifically i ask:
1. how many are unique and different scientists?
2. how many of #1 did NOT appear simultaneously on the SAME papers? (note:
it is very commonplace in science writing ... to have papers with 5 or 6 or
7 or 8 authors ... would these count in the HUNDREDS of OTHER scientists?)
3. how many different PAPERS/BOOKS does this represent as separated from
the HUNDREDS of other scientists?
4. how many of these papers ... where citations are commonly carried over
from one paper to another ... are from the same group of researchers
working in the same institution(s)?
i know when i write papers, i quote myself ... is that not common practice?
but, to assert that i am having impact on myself ... is rather strange ...
so, now i have 5 papers ... where the fifth cites 3 of the others ... and
so on and so forth ...
and students who work with me ... cite those papers too ... they HAVE to!
now, i want to make it abundantly clear that i am in NO way suggesting that
the person or persons who was (were) given in evidence as havingion
average) 12000 citations over 12 years ... has (have) not made important
contributions to biology ... and that others do not recognize that ...
but, your implication that 12000 citations over 12 years has impacted
hundreds of scientists in important ways ... is overstated ... ALOT
there just is no way to do any corroboration that will show convincingly
... that this level of citations for THIS or any other person ... equates
to the level of impact that you are implying
the questions i have raised about citation rates in general ... and
specifically in this case ... are fully legitimate to make about citation
rates ... and, if you have some good data to clearly answer the questions
posed ... i (and most others i would suspect) would be more than delighted
to examine these data
CITATION RATE STATISTICS ARE HIGHLY OVERRATED
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
