Science
36 watchers
16 Feb
9:12am, 16 Feb 2024
6,198 posts
|
Windsor Wool
I hadn’t come across Google Scholar before. That’s the most convenient method for searching I’ve come across. Thanks. You have a lot of citations JDA. Must be good stuff that you’ve published! |
16 Feb
1:02pm, 16 Feb 2024
16,500 posts
|
jda
Well the top one is as a (very) minor contributing author for one of the big IPCC reports. That's more to do with being in the club than actually doing anything important. I think I supplied a line on a graph or something like that. The second, however, I'm quite proud of as it's based on an idea I originally published in 2006, that took almost 15 years to become mainstream. It was Science magazine's "breakthrough of the year" in the environmental science category when it came out a few years ago - beaten to the overall title that year by the covid vaccine, which I can grudgingly accept 
|
|
16 Feb
2:21pm, 16 Feb 2024
6,199 posts
|
Windsor Wool
you’re published in Science? As in the real Science? Wow, that is a major achievement. Sorry about the 2nd place through - just another thing that COVID screwed up! Obviously, my own work was more of a means to an end, a route to a job and some income. The number of citations I received were very modest by comparison. That said, when I’ve looked back and seen that some of those that help form my own research direction have gone on to cite my work I do feel a strange sense of pride. |
16 Feb
2:35pm, 16 Feb 2024
21,618 posts
|
rf_fozzy
I'm extremely cynical about the nature of publication and citations. There are a number of huge issues about how work is reviewed (and the politics behind it), the fact that many of the big "major" journals are owned by publishing houses who earn huge amounts of unearned income based on them, the fact that many studies are unreproducible and that there is an enormous skew and bias towards 'positive' results. Then whole careers are based on metrics of numbers of publications and numbers of citations and then "impact" based on a fairly arbitrary number in the REF reviews. Outputs of research are really important - particularly when publicly funded, but to me, the way this is currently done is archaic and biased. |
16 Feb
3:32pm, 16 Feb 2024
13,343 posts
|
sallykate
In the UK, research assessment has nothing to do with citations, and the impact element of REF is totally unrelated to publications themselves. The vast majority of publications and other outputs have to be in the public domain to be included in REF. That said, there is a lot to be improved in research assessments globally. DORA and CoARA are two initiatives looking st this. And academics are all too keen to focus on the so-called “top” journals. |
|
16 Feb
3:33pm, 16 Feb 2024
13,344 posts
|
sallykate
Reproducibility is a particular issue in psychology. In the physical sciences it’s less of a problem, though definitely not unheard of.
|
|
16 Feb
4:01pm, 16 Feb 2024
21,619 posts
|
rf_fozzy
"In the UK, research assessment has nothing to do with citations, and the impact element of REF is totally unrelated to publications themselves. " But they are used as measures of assessing the researchers themselves! And reproducibility is definitely a problem in physical sciences. I say this as someone who has tried to replicate (published) previous work as a starting point for something else, only to find either the method misses out key details or cannot be reproduced at all. But I can't publish my results in attempting to replicate a piece of work because I don't have a positive result. |
|
16 Feb
6:02pm, 16 Feb 2024
13,345 posts
|
sallykate
You're right, fozzy, unfortunately that is still the culture but it is something which is being slowly challenged. I meant assessment at the institutional level. And I have had experience of trying to repeat other people's published experiements without success, early in my DPhil, frustrating indeed that it felt like a waste of time with no opportunity to point out that it was a dodgy result, or incomplete method. (This was chemistry, so in theory easy enough!) But most of the published work which I applied was OK. Psychology is notoriously bad, or used to be. |
|
16 Feb
6:06pm, 16 Feb 2024
16,502 posts
|
jda
I have quite a lot of sympathy for fozzy’s position, though I know within REF or whatever it’s called, the research is supposed to be assessed properly. Whether people are really capable of doing this fairly and accurately is one issue, but there’s also more to life than REF and just try applying for jobs and grants without a CV stuffed with sexy publications. It was a significant factor in my decision to move abroad, if you weren’t in the in-crowd it seemed a very cliquey environment where who you knew was more important that what you could do. In Japan, no one realised that I was a nobody so they let me get on with what I wanted. Actually WW it wasn’t *in* Science, they just took it upon themselves to assess what was important in the entire world of science (small s) over the year. Obviously their assessment was particularly accurate on that occasion
|
22 Feb
11:40am, 22 Feb 2024
49,467 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Hello - nootropics and effect on the brain? Quack or real? frontiersin.org It's in some alco free beer that I was interested in, but would like to understand more. Thanks scientists! G
|
Related Threads
-
What's your view on someone who believes Earth is being or has been visited by UFOs/UAP's
Nov 2024
-
Night sky aka Star gazing aka Astronomy :-)
Nov 2024
-
Rise of the robots :-)
Aug 2024
-
Interesting study
Jul 2024
-
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing at warp speed - A bit nerdy but I think you'll be amazed
Jun 2024
-
Units of measurements
Feb 2022
-
Mars Landing
Feb 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
No such thing as too much exercise
Oct 2018
-
Rocketeers!
Apr 2017