The major purpose of the talk was to introduce our SciMeter project which I've been working on for a few years now with Tom Price and Tobias Mistele. But I also talk a bit about my PhD topic and particle physics and how my book came about, so maybe it's interesting for some of you.
Off topic - Since this video was originally posted and I commented that it was good that Dr. Hossenfelder didn't stay with String Theory but took another path; her reply was that she'd made her life complicated, felt foolish for that and didn't recommend it. I've been cogitating on that. My life has seemed overly complicated at times, but I have relatively little responsibility. I think a complicated life where one makes an impact and pursues their interests is an amazing game to play for one's existence. I would encourage it. I'm hoping that I can make my own life more gloriously foolish like that. :)
Jorge Hirsch - University of California San Diego, the developer of the Hole theory of superconductivity has invented the h-index whose intent is to rank achievement in science. His methodology in this field may be of interest.
Does the h-index have predictive power?
Bibliometric measures of individual scientific achievement are of particular interest if they can be used to predict future achievement. Here we report results of an empirical study of the predictive power of the h-index compared to other indicators. Our findings indicate that the h-index is better than other indicators considered (total citation count, citations per paper, and total paper count) in predicting future scientific achievement. We discuss reasons for the superiority of the h-index.
So the SciMeter tools are presently only functional for authors whose publications are on the arXiv server. Google Scholar on the other hand is not limited to the arXiv server, but is limited in the metrics it can easily provide. Hopefully this talk motivates Google to improve the metric capabilities of Google Scholar, maybe even allowing it to directly use metrics defined via SciMeter. Enabling more data sources for SciMeter seems more tricky, adding Semantic Scholar, medRxiv and bioRxiv could provide some benefit, but adding too many additional new sources could open other cans of worms. It seems more promising to me to encourage bigger players to improve their metric capabilities, than trying to get access to and integrate more data sources into SciMeter.
This is really great! Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteTed
Off topic - Since this video was originally posted and I commented that it was good that Dr. Hossenfelder didn't stay with String Theory but took another path; her reply was that she'd made her life complicated, felt foolish for that and didn't recommend it.
ReplyDeleteI've been cogitating on that. My life has seemed overly complicated at times, but I have relatively little responsibility. I think a complicated life where one makes an impact and pursues their interests is an amazing game to play for one's existence. I would encourage it.
I'm hoping that I can make my own life more gloriously foolish like that. :)
https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0646
ReplyDeleteJorge Hirsch - University of California San Diego, the developer of the Hole theory of superconductivity has invented the h-index whose intent is to rank achievement in science. His methodology in this field may be of interest.
Does the h-index have predictive power?
Bibliometric measures of individual scientific achievement are of particular interest if they can be used to predict future achievement. Here we report results of an empirical study of the predictive power of the h-index compared to other indicators. Our findings indicate that the h-index is better than other indicators considered (total citation count, citations per paper, and total paper count) in predicting future scientific achievement. We discuss reasons for the superiority of the h-index.
So the SciMeter tools are presently only functional for authors whose publications are on the arXiv server. Google Scholar on the other hand is not limited to the arXiv server, but is limited in the metrics it can easily provide. Hopefully this talk motivates Google to improve the metric capabilities of Google Scholar, maybe even allowing it to directly use metrics defined via SciMeter. Enabling more data sources for SciMeter seems more tricky, adding Semantic Scholar, medRxiv and bioRxiv could provide some benefit, but adding too many additional new sources could open other cans of worms. It seems more promising to me to encourage bigger players to improve their metric capabilities, than trying to get access to and integrate more data sources into SciMeter.
ReplyDelete