Einstein's Google Scholar Profile(scholar.google.com)
scholar.google.com
Einstein's Google Scholar Profile
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ&hl=en
9 comments
As a former academic in pure math, I was once given the advice that university hiring/promo committees care about two things with respect to publishing:
1. The most prestigious journal you’ve published in. 2. The number of publications.
Churning out mediocre papers and writing grant proposals seemed awful to me, so I left for the tech industry.
1. The most prestigious journal you’ve published in. 2. The number of publications.
Churning out mediocre papers and writing grant proposals seemed awful to me, so I left for the tech industry.
As a tenured professor, I've sat on many promotion and tenure meetings. Your comment reminded me of one that's lingered in my memory, of a faculty member undergoing review.
This person had as high an h index as any of the other persons at their level, but was committed to publishing in open access journals. I saw it as a reasonable or good thing to be doing, and believed their h index was proof it didn't really matter, but it started a debate as some of the senior faculty believed the journals weren't prestigious enough. They basically believed this faculty had been mismentored, and to prevent this from happening again, it was decided there should be a list of "approved" journals to be developed and circulated among the department.
It's one of the most absurd things I've seen, all the more absurd because this faculty was clearly getting cited and doing fine (citation indices have their own problems, but what does the outlet matter if the articles are impactful? Especially if these are well-known open access journals?).
This person had as high an h index as any of the other persons at their level, but was committed to publishing in open access journals. I saw it as a reasonable or good thing to be doing, and believed their h index was proof it didn't really matter, but it started a debate as some of the senior faculty believed the journals weren't prestigious enough. They basically believed this faculty had been mismentored, and to prevent this from happening again, it was decided there should be a list of "approved" journals to be developed and circulated among the department.
It's one of the most absurd things I've seen, all the more absurd because this faculty was clearly getting cited and doing fine (citation indices have their own problems, but what does the outlet matter if the articles are impactful? Especially if these are well-known open access journals?).
"no verified email"
No shit, Einstein!
No shit, Einstein!
really interesting share. a reminder of the arbitrariness of our current metrics of "citation"s and "h indexes". consider Ludwig Boltzmann's non-existent google scholar profile and his paper "Further studies on the thermal equilibrium of gas molecules" with 131 citations, in which he explained the 2nd law using statistical mechanics and defined entropy.
What does it mean when a 'cited by X' is crossed out? I tried clicking it but it isn't explained.
> Why is the "Cited by" count for one of my articles crossed out?
> Google Scholar considers this article the same as another article in your profile. We display the "Cited by" count next to both of the duplicates, but we only count them once in your citation metrics.
> We recommend that you merge the duplicates - select both articles and click the "Merge" button.
> Google Scholar considers this article the same as another article in your profile. We display the "Cited by" count next to both of the duplicates, but we only count them once in your citation metrics.
> We recommend that you merge the duplicates - select both articles and click the "Merge" button.
[deleted]
Duplicate entries.
Einstein had few real publications, which I think is good. In fact, his CV is often shown as an example of what a top notch academic CV should look like. A few selected papers on core ideas, developed throughout a lifetime. Instead, many academics these days publish 500 or 600 articles during their career. That means they are just stamping their names onto one more than one paper per month, which is totally absurd.
Sadly, citations and paper counts have ceased to be useful metrics. Historically, productive institutions (Bell Labs, LMB Cambridge, CSHL, etc) did not measure performance with these, as they are useless. Now, on the other hand, things are quite different...