On 10-Mar-09 01:07:54, David Duffy wrote: > Given we are talking about statistical software, one bibliometric > measure of relative package popularity is scientific citations. > Web of Science is not too useful where the citation has been to a > website or computer package, but Google Scholar for "lme4: Linear > mixed-effects models using S4 classes" gives us 108 journal > citations; "mgcv: GAMs and generalized ridge regression for R" 80 etc > > Cheers, David Duffy.
A good point. But such numbers must be considered in the context of the prevalence of the kind of study for which the respective methods would be used. A great number of epidemiological studies would be suitable for application of glm(). Fewer would involve GAMs. "Popularity" of a package by citation frequency would (other things being equal) be proportional to the frequency of the kind of study for which it could be used. So one should either evaluate the proportion of studies in which an R package *could* be used, in which it *was* used; or compare the number of citations of an R package with the number of citations of an equiavlent package/module/proc in other software. Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 10-Mar-09 Time: 02:03:22 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.