Inspired by A citation is not a citation is not a citation by Lior Patcher, this rant is about metrics.
Lior Patcher is a researcher in Caltech. As many other researchers in the academy, Dr. Patcher is measured by, among other things, publications and their impact as measured by citations. In his post, Lior Patcher criticised both the current impact metrics and also their effect on citation patterns in the academic community.
PROBLEM POINTED: citations don’t really measure “actual” citations. Most of the appeared citations are “hit and run citations” i.e: people mention other people’s research without taking anything from that research.
In fact this author has cited [a certain] work in exactly the same way in several other papers which appear to be copies of each other for a total of 7 citations all of which are placed in dubious “papers”. I suppose one may call this sort of thing hit and run citation.
via A citation is not a citation is not a citation — Bits of DNA
I think that the biggest problem with citation counts is that it costs nothing to cite a paper. When you add a research (or a post, for that matter) to your reference list, you know that most probably nobody will check whether actually read it, that nobody will check whether you got that publication correctly and that nobody will that the chances are super (SUUPER) low nobody will check whether you conclusions are right. All it takes is to click a button.
The bottom line: read it but use your best judgement 4/5
I recently completed reading “The Formula. The Universal Laws of Success” by Albert-László Barabási. Barabási is a network science professor who co-authored the “preferential attachment” paper (a.k.a. the Barabási-Albert model). People who follow him closely are ether vivid fabs or haters accusing him of nonsense science.
For several years, A-L Barabási is talking and writing about the “science of success” (yeah, I can hear some of my colleagues laughing right now). Recently, he summarized the research in this area in an easy-to-read book with the promising title “The Formula. The Universal Laws of Success.” The main takeaways that I took from this book are:
- Success is about us, not about you. In other words, it doesn’t matter how hard you work and how good your work is, if “we” (i.e., the public) don’t know about it, or don’t see it, or attribute it to someone else.
- Be known for your expertise. Talk passionately about your job. The people who talk about an idea will get the credit for it. Consider the following example from the book. Let’s say, prof. Barabasi and the Pope write a joint scientific paper. If the article is about network science, it will be perceived as if the Pope helped Barabasi with writing an essay. If, on the other hand, if it is a theosophical book, we will immediately assume that the Pope was the leading force behind it.
- It doesn’t matter how old you are; the success can come to you at any age. It is a well-known fact that most successful people broke into success at a young age. What Barabási claims is that the reason for that is not a form of ageism but the fact that the older people try less. According to this claim, as long as you are creative and work hard, your most significant success is ahead of you.
- Persistence pays. This is another claim that Barabasi makes in his book. It is related to the previous one but is based on a different set of observations (did you know that Harry Potter was rejected twelve times before it was published?). I must say that I’m very skeptical about this one. Right now, I don’t have the time to explain my reasons, and I promise to write a dedicated post.
Keep in mind that the author uses academic success (the Nobel prize, citation index, etc.) as the metric for most of his conclusions. This limitation doesn’t bother him, after all, Barabási is a full-time University professor, but most of us should add another grain of salt to the conclusions.
Overall, if you find yourself thinking about your professional future, or if you are looking for a good career advice, I recommend reading this book.
You know that I like reading a ruthless critique of others’ work — I like telling myself that by doing so I learn good practices (in reality, I suspect I’m just a case what we call in Hebrew שמחה לאיד — the joy of some else’s failure).
Anyhow, I’d like to share a set of posts by Lior Patcher in which he calls bullshit on several reputable people and concepts. Calling bullshit is easy. Doing so with arguments is not so. Lior Patcher worked hard to justify his opinion.
- . Albert-László Barabási is a renown network scientist. There’s a network model named after him. Some people claim that prof. Barabási will receive the Nobel prize one day.
- . Published one day after “The ““, this post critiques another renown scientist. Again, with a lot of solid-sounding arguments.
- . (“Where is part I?”, you may ask. Read the post to discover).
Unfortunately, I don’t publish academic papers. But if I do, I will definitely want prof. Patcher read it, and let the world know what he thinks about it. For good and for bad.
Speaking of calling bullshit. Believe it or not, University of Washington has a course with this exact title. The course is available online http://callingbullshit.org/ and is worth watching. I watched all the course’s videos during my last flight from Canada to Israel. The featured image of this post is a screenshot of this course’s homepage.