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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:49PM (#78401)

    calculated on the basis of increased growth as an ultimate result of work done

    Increased growth of what?

    I sincerely hope you don't mean increased economic growth. Because that would mean to reduce science to only a helper of economics. That's not what science should be.

    Have you noticed that there are very few popular science books about stock trading, but very many about cosmology or string theory? What do you think why this is, maybe because unlike stock trading, cosmology and string theory are extremely relevant for economy?