Comment: Citation Statistics
Sune Lehmann, Benny E. Lautrup, Andrew D. Jackson
TL;DR
This paper comments on the importance of accurate and distinguishing citation metrics for ranking scientific authors, emphasizing the need for measures that can effectively differentiate individual research impact.
Contribution
It highlights key features that citation measures must have to be considered effective in author ranking, critiquing existing metrics and proposing criteria for good measures.
Findings
Effective citation measures must distinguish between authors accurately
Current metrics often fail to differentiate author impact adequately
The paper emphasizes the need for improved assessment tools
Abstract
We discuss the paper "Citation Statistics" by the Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research [arXiv:0910.3529]. In particular, we focus on a necessary feature of "good" measures for ranking scientific authors: that good measures must able to accurately distinguish between authors.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.