Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit |
→See also: remove irrelevant entry |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|
{{Citation metrics}}
The '''Kardashian Index''' ('''K-Index'''), named after media personality [[Kim Kardashian]], is a satirical measure of the discrepancy between a scientist's [[social media]] profile and [[publication]] record.<ref name = "originalarticle">{{cite journal|title=The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists
==Definition==
The relationship between the expected number of Twitter followers
<math display="block">F(C) = 43.
which is derived from the Twitter accounts and citation counts of a "randomish selection of 40 scientists" in 2014.<ref name = "originalarticle" /> The Kardashian Index is thus calculated as
<math display="block">\text{K-index} = \frac{
where <math>
==Interpretation==
A high K-index indicates an over-blown scientific fame, while a low K-index suggests that a scientist is being undervalued. According to the author Hall, researchers whose K-index > 5 can be considered
{{blockquote|
I propose that all scientists calculate their own K-index on an annual basis and include it in their Twitter profile. Not only does this help others decide how much weight they should give to someone’s 140 character wisdom, it can also be an incentive{{snd}} if your K-index gets above 5, then it’s time to get off Twitter and write those papers.
}}
Hall also added "a serious note" noticing the gender disparity in his sample. Of 14 female scientists, 11 had lower than predicted K-indices, while only one of the high-index scientists was female.<ref name="originalarticle"/>
On February 11, 2022, on Twitter, Neil Hall stated that he intended the Kardashian Index to be a “dig at metrics not Kardashians” and that “the entire premise is satire”.<ref>{{cite tweet |last=Hall |first=Neil |user=neilhall_uk |number=1492259823114723329 |date=11 February 2022 |title=@GidMK @WvSchaik
==Response==
Many jocular indices of scientific productivity were proposed in the immediate aftermath of publication of the K-Index paper.<ref name="Griggs2014"/> The Tesla Index measured social isolation of scientists relative to their productivity, named after [[Nikola Tesla]], whose work was hugely influential, while he remained a social recluse.<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 31, 2014 |first=Keith |last=Bradnam |title=The Tesla index: a measure of social isolation for scientists |url=http://www.acgt.me/blog/2014/7/31/the-tesla-index-a-measure-of-social-isolation-for-scientists |access-date=2022-04-20 |website=ACGT |language=en-GB}}</ref> People tweeted suggestions hashtagged <code>#alternatesciencemetrics</code>.<ref name="Griggs2014"/><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Rothkopf |first=Joanna |date=2014-08-04 |title=The Kardashian index and the 10 best #alternatesciencemetrics tweets |url=https://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/the_kardashian_index_and_the_10_best_alternatesciencemetrics_tweets/ |access-date=2022-04-20 |website=Salon |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140807214130/https://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/the_kardashian_index_and_the_10_best_alternatesciencemetrics_tweets/ |archive-date=2014-08-07 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
In 2022, [[John Ioannidis]] authored a paper in ''The BMJ'' arguing that signatories of the [[Great Barrington Declaration]] about how to deal with the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] were shunned as a fringe minority by those in favor of the [[John Snow Memorandum]]. According to him, the latter used their large numbers of followers on [[Twitter]] and other [[social media]] and [[op-ed]]s to shape a scientific "[[groupthink]]" against the former, who had less influence.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Knapton |first=Sarah |date=February 15, 2022 |title=Lockdown debate skewed because sceptical scientists were shunned on social media |language=en-GB |work=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/15/lockdown-debate-skewed-sceptical-scientists-shunned-social-media/ |access-date=March 3, 2022 |issn=0307-1235}}</ref>
▲On February 11, 2022, on Twitter, Neil Hall stated that he intended the Kardashian Index to be a “dig at metrics not Kardashians” and that “the entire premise is satire”.<ref>{{cite tweet |last=Hall |first=Neil |user=neilhall_uk |number=1492259823114723329 |date=11 February 2022 |title=@GidMK @WvSchaik It’s a dig at metrics not Kardashians. It’s like taking a quiz to see what character from Game of Thrones you are and finding out you’re Joffrey Baratheon. It doesn’t matter - it’s not a real test. Thankfully |language=en |access-date=21 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220214201456/https://twitter.com/neilhall_uk/status/1492259823114723329 |archive-date=14 February 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
The version of the index that Ioannidis used [[Scopus]] citations instead of Google Scholar citations, since many of the signatories had no Google Scholar pages.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ioannidis |first=John |date=February 1, 2022 |title=Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy |url=https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/2/e052891 |journal=BMJ Open |language=en |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=e052891 |doi=10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052891 |issn=2044-6055 |pmid=35140152|pmc=8829837 }}</ref>
The K-index suggests that the number of citations of a given scientist is comparable to their scientific value. This assumption has been criticized.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40613/title/Introducing-the--K-Index-/ |title=Introducing the "K Index"}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/citations-are-not-a-measure-of-quality/ |title=Citations are not a measure of quality |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819090745/http://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/citations-are-not-a-measure-of-quality/ |archivedate=2014-08-19}}</ref>▼
▲The K-index suggests that the number of citations of a given scientist is comparable to their scientific value. This assumption has been criticized.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40613/title/Introducing-the--K-Index-/|title=Introducing the "K Index"}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/citations-are-not-a-measure-of-quality/|title=Citations are not a measure of quality|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819090745/http://biomickwatson.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/citations-are-not-a-measure-of-quality/|archivedate=2014-08-19}}</ref>
==See also==
* [[Academic authorship]]
* [[Attention inequality]]
==References==
Line 31 ⟶ 41:
==Bibliography==
* {{cite news |last=Francisco |first=Mikael Angelo |date=2014-07-31 |title=The Kardashian Index: A scientific measure of unwarranted fame |url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/372797/scitech/science/the-kardashian-index-a-scientific-measure-of-unwarranted-fame |newspaper=[[GMA Network]] |accessdate=2014-10-10 |archiveurl=https://
* {{cite news |author=Staff writer |date=2014-08-05 |title=Scientist proposes Kardashian Index |url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scientist-proposes-kardashian-index-154911316.html |publisher=[[Yahoo! News]] |agency=[[Press Association]] |accessdate=2014-10-10 |archiveurl=https://
* {{cite news |last=Larki |first=Shadan |date=2014-08-05 |title=The 'Kardashian index' measures researchers' social clout |url=http://www.dailydot.com/geek/kardashian-index-scientists-researchers-social-clout/ |newspaper=[[The Daily Dot]] |accessdate=2014-10-10 |archiveurl=https://
* {{cite journal |last=Woolston |first=Chris |date=2014-08-14 |title=Clash over the Kardashians of science |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=512 |issue=17 |page=517 |doi=10.1038/512117e |bibcode=2014Natur.512..117W |doi-access=free }}
* {{cite news |last=Parr |first=Chris |date=2014-08-14 |title=Kardashian Index: the academics famous just for being famous |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/kardashian-index-the-academics-famous-just-for-being-famous/2015070.article |newspaper=[[Times Higher Education]] |accessdate=2014-10-10 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141011003116/http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/kardashian-index-the-academics-famous-just-for-being-famous/2015070.article |archivedate=2014-10-11 }}
* {{cite news |last=Steinbauer |first=Von Anna |date=2014-09-22 |title="Kardashian"-Index in der Wissenschaft |url=http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/kardashian-index-in-der-wissenschaft-risiken-des-ruhms-1.2139035 |newspaper=[[Süddeutsche Zeitung]] |accessdate=2014-10-10 |archiveurl=https://
== External links ==
| |||