3 ms·
this seems to be simply a ranking of organisations by the number of citations. there are a number of factors missed: 1. what's the earliest publication of eac
by dododo 16y ago
this seems to be simply a ranking of organisations by the number of citations.
there are a number of factors missed:
1. what's the earliest publication of each organisation?
2. what's the real world impact of the publications? (citations are not real world impact.)
3. what was the significance of an organisation's contribution to a publication? for example, there might be many authors, where only one author did the actual work.
4. it should be normalized by the size of the organisation.
5. CS is multidisciplinary: plenty of people in CS publish in other domains such as biology, mathematics, statistics.
i couldn't work out if they counted self-citations or not.
- yread 16y agowhat's the earliest publication of each organisation? You can control for that by selecting last 10 or 5 years. That makes Microsoft look even better, though. it should be normalized by the size of the organisation. I guess it depends, I think it is ok like this. This shows which organization has biggest impact on computer science.
- rxin 16y agoRe impact: While it's not strictly correlated, the number of citations does indicate to a certain degree the real world impact of a publication. This is usually how you measure "impact" in the academia.
- ahi 16y agoIt's the wrong way to measure real world impact. It just happens to be an incredibly easy way for tenure and hiring committees to make decisions. There are a ton of problems with it, many have been pointed out in this thread. One I haven't seen mentioned is that lit reviews cited disproportionately (especially in the sciences). Many of them aren't even read. Many journals limit the number of citations so authors cite one lit review rather than many separate studies.