4 ms·

We are in need for new metrics beyond citation count or quantity of published papers. A century ago, there was more content in each paper than it is today. This

We are in need for new metrics beyond citation count or quantity of published papers. A century ago, there was more content in each paper than it is today. This is mainly related to the incentives that exist today to publish, e.g. for getting a raise in salary or getting a getting a new academic position. I like to cite older papers because I can reference them multiple times in a single manuscript, reducing the number of references (e.g. below 60). If I would cite new papers, results are spread across 10 or more publication what was once published in a single paper. I haven't found a fair way to assess quality of papers - I think it depends highly on individual author motivations. If we are able to identify the right patterns among authors' motivations, it may be possible to come up with a better rating system for papers published. Current rating systems focus too much on individual papers/journals, and too less on authors.

kmmlng 4y ago
I have a feeling whatever metric you define will just create different problems. The high emphasis on metrics itself is the problem, because quantifying someone's research quality is not at all trivial. To your other point: I get what you mean, and I don't even disagree, but I could also make the exact opposite point. Papers today often are these big, overly structured manuscripts that actually cointain a multitude of ideas so that it can become hard to see what exactly the point of the paper is. In the past, papers often were much more atomic. They presented one idea with some relevant context. There was no need to prove you had surveyed the entire field just to present an idea. No useless context, more relevance, more focus.
- Helmut10001 4y ago
  Yes, I don't have a solution - I should have made that more clear in my original post.
alecco 4y ago
20 years ago there were discussions about PageRank applied to citations. But as we all know, it can be manipulated, too (SEO).

kmmlng 4y ago

I have a feeling whatever metric you define will just create different problems. The high emphasis on metrics itself is the problem, because quantifying someone's research quality is not at all trivial. To your other point: I get what you mean, and I don't even disagree, but I could also make the exact opposite point. Papers today often are these big, overly structured manuscripts that actually cointain a multitude of ideas so that it can become hard to see what exactly the point of the paper is. In the past, papers often were much more atomic. They presented one idea with some relevant context. There was no need to prove you had surveyed the entire field just to present an idea. No useless context, more relevance, more focus.

Helmut10001 4y ago
Yes, I don't have a solution - I should have made that more clear in my original post.

alecco 4y ago

20 years ago there were discussions about PageRank applied to citations. But as we all know, it can be manipulated, too (SEO).