Difference between revisions of "JC Lehmann 2006 Measuring scientific quality"
(article info into box) 
(box bgcolor) 

Line 1:  Line 1:  
{{Back to journal club}}__NOTOC__  {{Back to journal club}}__NOTOC__  
−  { border=1 width=600px cellpadding=10  +  { border=1 width=600px cellpadding=10 
−  '''Measure for measures''' by Sune Lehmann<sup>1</sup>, Andrew D. Jackson<sup>2</sup> and Benny E. Lautrup<sup>2</sup>  +  bgcolor="lightcyan" 
+  '''Measure for measures''' by Sune Lehmann<sup>1</sup>, Andrew D. Jackson<sup>2</sup> and Benny E. Lautrup<sup>2</sup>  
<small>1. Sune Lehmann is at the Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.<br>  <small>1. Sune Lehmann is at the Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.<br> 
Revision as of 07:01, 30 October 2007
back to journal club 
Measure for measures by Sune Lehmann^{1}, Andrew D. Jackson^{2} and Benny E. Lautrup^{2} 1. Sune Lehmann is at the Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby. Are some ways of measuring scientific quality better than others? (there's no real abstract for this article)

summary
The authors test the usefulness of various measures of scientific achievement. They place their test group of SPIRES authors (physics) into 10 groups and determine whether authors initially assigned to a given category are predicted to lie in a different category. Alphabetical order is used as a sorting method without quality. It is compared to papers/year, the hindex, and mean number of citations per paper. [1]
Surprisingly, papers/year fares similar to alphabetical order, i.e. no good measure of quality. hindex and mean are better with the mean number of citations per paper being slightly better.
The authors state that many institutions use doubtful measures of quality. They state that impact factor does not reflect on the impact of a single publication, since it only describes the journal overall  i.e. citation rate of individual papers is largely without correlation the the journals impact factor. Also, they comment that one of the most widely used measures of scientific quality, the average number of papers published by an author per year, is at best a measure of industry rather than ability.
comments
This is a great paper and an overdue critical look at the usefulness of some indicators that our institutions and funding agencies are using/abusing as measures of quality. A must read. Jasu 10:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
links
 Bibliometrics Wikipedia
 hindex Wikipedia
 Impact factor Wikipedia