Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the famous-editors dept.

A genomics professor has devised a tongue-in-cheek measure of scientific work vs. scientific recognition.

Neil Hall, a genomics professor with the University of Liverpool, has kicked up a bit of an Internet storm. He's written a paper and has had it published in the journal Genome Biology, suggesting (with tongue firmly in cheek) that some scientists are getting more attention than they deserve, due to their heightened social standing. He's even come up with a way to measure it, his so-called "Kardashian-index" or more simply, K-index-it's derived by noting how many people are following the scientist on Twitter and then dividing that number by followers the scientist probably should have due to papers written and associated citations for it, i.e. proof of actual work done.

The index is named after Kim Kardashian (and her family) of course, who have become famous for being famous -- they don't actually do anything. And that's the point of Hall's paper-is the scientific community in danger of being overrun by scientists who make a lot of noise in the social media world, but do very little actual scientific work? Hall notes that there seems to be times when scientists are asked to give talks at conferences based more on their social standing than on work they have actually done. This begs the question, are scientists (regardless of field) just as susceptible to the cult of celebrity as everyone else and if so, is it harming science?

Full text: http://genomebiology.com/2014/15/7/424

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:55AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:55AM (#78283) Journal

    First off, linguistic prescriptivism is a pointless fight that you will never win. "X begs the question" is perfectly valid phrase meaning "X raises the question", because that's how people use it.

    Because it is not slang, where "bad" can mean "good", or "cool" can mean "hot, and so forth. It is a pretension to vocabulary that the speaker does not grasp. So it does not mean what people think it means, even though they keep using it! (Yes, I know, it inconceivable!)

    And the usual, non-classically derived name for the error in reasoning is "arguing in a circle". Circular reasoning is like saying that a word means whatever people think it means, so whatever people think a word means is what it means! Hey, that begets a question: what if people do not know what a word means, but they keep using it anyway?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2