| Here are some examples of bibliometrics: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index The big one. Used to judge researchers. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-index Another one for researchers. I haven't really come in contact with this one very much. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I10-index Google's own little algorithm. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor Older. Used to judge journals The first and last articles have fittingly long "criticism" sections. A key point to make here is that these bibliometrics succeed at their basic goal (providing one platform by which to judge all academics/publications) at the price of misaligning incentives. Resultantly: you do get to judge all academics on an even platform, but that platform is a weighted average of how well they do research and how well they play the politics/popularity game, scaled by the popularity of their field (good luck finding me a researcher in theoretical plasma physics with an h-index over 30 -- I'm not sure there are even 30 theoretical plasma physicists in the US.). On top of this, sites like ResearchGate (like LinkedIn, but for researchers) give people their own score, which is pretty opaque, and display it in bright green next to everyone's profile picture. It introduces a lot of competition to a field that doesn't really need it. |