3 ms·
Yes, I know why it was disruptive. The question (for this paper) is, what other biological papers were more disruptive (since, based on the range of the scale,
by fastaguy88 4y ago
Yes, I know why it was disruptive. The question (for this paper) is, what other biological papers were more disruptive (since, based on the range of the scale, they barely made the first quintile).
I think the more important question is, how do we validate the usefulness of the CD5 metric. And, why is it better to be "disruptive" than "consolidating"?
Based on the examples shown (and others that I can imagine), it is unclear that it measures anything related to scientific significance.
- dekhn 4y agoI had already discounted the measure as being too prone to sampling error to be useful. I don't think these things are really measurable, and even if you did measure it, "disruption" and "consolidation" are such subjective terms it would be arguable to have a single-dimensional slider that went between those extremes. Probably best to just say some of the greatest discoveries are both disruptive, and consolidating.