tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post16593067245791248..comments2024-03-28T17:13:01.117+10:00Comments on Condensed concepts: The best measure of research impact is ...Ross H. McKenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-69134199784353174112012-08-02T17:57:52.459+10:002012-08-02T17:57:52.459+10:00Hi Tony,
Thanks for the comment.
I agree that ult...Hi Tony,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.<br />I agree that ultimately, landmark work produces lots of citations.<br />But, the problem is that on the 5 year timescale of a tenure decision, citations are not a clear measure of long-term impact. Weinberg's case clearly shows this.<br />Hence, one is left with the subjective judgement of ten or so experts who can best judge what is important.Ross H. McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-39507988312094559472012-07-20T21:33:05.277+10:002012-07-20T21:33:05.277+10:00I suppose Stanford can reasonably expect this.
Ho...I suppose Stanford can reasonably expect this.<br /><br />However, wouldn't Weinberg's prl only fit this criterion once it had very many citations? In this sense one stellar paper once that changed our view of physics would be enough.<br /><br />So I'd suggest that the total number of citations of, say, your top 5 cited papers (or so) would quantify, in very many cases, this criterion stipulated by Zare.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08582644751812812675noreply@blogger.com