At 16:34 31/03/2014 +0000, the.Duke.of.URL wrote:
>Andrew Gelman has listed a number of papers that have more than 10,000
>Google Scholar cites. Gelman discusses a bias in lists such as this one.
>The current coalition and the past Labour government like such lists as
>these as they are quantifiable, never mind whether meaningful.
One presumably has to keep in mind the fact that a paper may be frequently
cited for 'negative', rather than 'positive', reasons ?!
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|