What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
28 Comments
- RiotHeart, on 05/23/2009, -1/+11I shall spam myself into being called ruler of galaxies
- d999w, on 05/23/2009, -0/+10Intelligence + Objectivity + Politics = Still *****.
- norick, on 05/23/2009, -1/+8It looks like the PageRank system from Google.
- k3rfuffl3, on 05/23/2009, -2/+8You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Some articles in Nature and Science are controversial, but that is not the majority. Method studies are important even if they're not the "brightest." The number of citations an article gets is an indication of how important it is - not its genius although might come along as part of the package. As for your third and retarded point: that's just the scientific process. In hind sight it might be stupid to say dinosaurs were not ancestors of bird, but that was not shown to be likely at the time. In fact, it's still not proven - it's simply more likely since we have more evidence.
Hirsch's method is a much less arbitrary method of determining the importance of an article. In science, less arbitrary = more scientific = better. Also, you're much more of a moron than Hirsch. - aoctavio, on 05/23/2009, -0/+6My most cited article was published in Mathematical Intelligencer and it's a critique of any numerical methods using citations to evaluate scientist. They are all bogus and full of gaming and problems. The only way to evaluate a scientist is the hard way: Get experts opinions about the work. That's it. The rest is bull and politics.
- kaosethema, on 05/23/2009, -0/+4Chandrasekhar was publicly ridiculed by Sir Eddington. His contribution? the theory of black holes.
some people are too impatient and need recognition right now.
they're called douchebags.
hirsch is suggesting a system eerily similar to DIGG. and we all know who brought us mr.babyman, right? - HPMNick, on 05/23/2009, -0/+3So the person who's work is the most popular is therefore the smartest and most correct? Anyone else see a flaw in this system?
- buddamus, on 05/23/2009, -0/+3Its a good idea, but I can smell abuse of it a mile away
- Junkyarddawg, on 05/23/2009, -12/+13This Hirsch guy is an idiot.
Firstly, high-impact journals like Nature and Science do not shun controversial papers, they prefer them. They're high impact BECAUSE they prefer controversial - and often wrong! - papers, because controversy means lots of citations, and lots of citations give a high impact rating.
Secondly, this idiots index is based on number of citations. The most cited works in Science are not the brightest and best studies, but method studies. If you, say, want to be cited in 500 astrophysics papers all you have to do is write a software which is free and better than the most used present software.
Thirdly, counting citations is also idiotic because some of the most cited works in Science are the truly ***** ones, the ones which are so bad that 500 scientists get annoyed and spend time debunking them. Feduccias 1997 article in Science where he claimed to prove that dinosaurs were not the ancestors of birds is a good example.
Yeah, the present method of calculating impact of journals and scientists is deeply flawed - but Hirsch's method is even worse. - pfhayter, on 05/23/2009, -2/+3Get a life.
- krispykreams, on 05/23/2009, -0/+1Wow, you are totally missing the point. You said it yourself, the "wrong" papers are already in high-impact journals. These "truly *****" papers are already being cited a ton, so the new system won't exactly get them publicity they have not had before. The crappy papers will be in the spotlight under both systems, but under the h-index people who actually make quality works will no longer be pushed into obscurity simply because some scientists are taking up space in journals with their controversial articles. Sure, the new system still has flaws, but it is moving towards a system where one can merit recognition, which is the way it should be.
- EnergyEinstein, on 05/23/2009, -0/+1Could probably throw in some keyword tracking and analytics too to determine the feel, attitude, etc. of responses (words from the work where original work is being cited); That could be a handy tool for someone who's wondering how their work and ideas are being seen, and where they may need to fill in some gaps or strengthen their argument. *5 cents*
And as I just mentioned in another reply, luckily there will still be human-review and people won't assume someone's a genius (hopefully not..) based on a high h-index number rating. :) - EnergyEinstein, on 05/23/2009, -0/+1Well luckily people won't just hire or think someone's a genius based on a high h-index count. :)
- krispykreams, on 05/23/2009, -0/+1Google Scholar works in a similar way.
- scamper22, on 05/23/2009, -0/+1We have a very good way to measure intelligence.
It's called discover something and prove it.
If scientists want to head into he destructive world of bureaucracy... that will be their own downfall. Invent any system and people will game it to their own benefit. - Acrobeles, on 05/23/2009, -2/+3Whoh.... one of us here is a little full of himself. And it isn't me.
- hellengineer, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1do whatever you want = always *****
- cippalippa78, on 05/24/2009, -0/+1the highest H index among chemists is from George Whitesides with an h of ~150
And he is definitely not Pople. - mrlobo, on 05/24/2009, -0/+1This article only shows how much catching up the scientific community still has to do with the IT community. Today's in-use scientific ranking systems are overly simple and lead to very poor judgement. Also:
* scientific repository systems are not properly globalized, often not even multi-disciplinary or properly indexed or aggregated
* research data is often incomprehensible, unverifiable or lost and poorly or not related to the conclusions in the papers
* "virtual research environments" are usually setup ad-hoc (and torn down in a similar fashion)
* scientists and scholars are often (happily) unaware of the capabilities of IT
* the list continues....
This article gives pretty outdated views on the scientific ranking systems that exist today. Thomson Reuters has already used the h-index in a bit smarter way, dividing it by the average amounts of cites each paper received in that journal. At the Los Alamost National Laboratory there has been some great work using techniques similar to pagerank.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/nb.s ... - Acrobeles, on 05/23/2009, -2/+3It'll help get you a job. On some job searches, one of the first things they do is calculate this index for the applicants. And with this ***** job market with an excess of qualified people looking for positions, it makes an easy metric for them to pare down the applications. Maybe not everyone takes it seriously, but there is no doubt that it is increasingly a factor.
- NathanielJ, on 05/23/2009, -6/+5Who cares? It's just another way to do scientific dick-waving like the Erdos number. Having a better h number will not get you better collaborators, it won't get you a job, and it won't help you get published, so what the hell is the point? Bragging rights, which is half of what's wrong with modern academia.
Yes, you're smart. We know it, you know it. Go do research and stop trying to come up with measurements of just how much smarter than everyone else you are. - mydiggID1, on 05/23/2009, -1/+1"...most..."
*****. - lusenok2, on 05/24/2009, -1/+1These numbers have some useful application.
But troubles start when this kind of penisometry is used as the main method in evaluating scientist's work.
It's particularly sad when it's used in hiring decisions.
The most cited chemist? John Pople.
Did he make a major breakthrough? Have anyone heard about him (besides chemists)? No.
He wrote some software for chemical calculations. The software's license agreement specifically asks to cite his paper describing it. That's it. - alpineidyll3, on 05/23/2009, -1/+0Yep, that's entirely the case. Sad but true.
- Junkyarddawg, on 05/23/2009, -4/+3Hey, k3rfuffl3, one of us two has been published in Nature and Science. And it isn't you.
Oh, and Feduccias work was based on misinterpreting one character in the embryonal development of chickens, and using that to "trump" the hundreds of known characters which link birds and dinosaurs. It was BS from the start. - Brassbud, on 05/23/2009, -4/+3This Hirsch guy seems like a douche. However, reading this article enlightens one as to why most things labeled as "science" are utter *****.
- Geheg3D, on 05/23/2009, -3/+1What's the deal with that picture on the first page of the article? Is Einstein only a 49, whereas this dude is 130? (Assuming 130 is better than 49.) If that's what this guy thinks, he's dead wrong. Einstein ***** overthrew the guy who (simultaneously, whatever) invented calculus. This guy just seems like he likes to bitch about his own failings.
- jgubbe, on 05/23/2009, -12/+3So that must be MrBabyMan's goal. Spam himself to the top so he can pleasure himself with a virtual H score.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is