Revision as of 15:15, 12 July 2020 edit Black Falcon (talk \| contribs) 83,746 edits m MOS:SECTIONCAPS, other gen. fixes ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:08, 10 May 2021 edit undo 2a02:c7f:b446:e100:fdc2:e989:db1:6cab (talk) →Criticism Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Next edit →
Line 14: ==Criticism== The K-index suggests that the number of citations of a given scientist is comparable to ~~his or her~~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> On the other hand, the proposal of the K-Index in itself can be interpreted as a criticism to the assumption that scientists should have a social media impact at all while, in reality, social media footprint has no correlation at all to the scientific quality or scientific impact.<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Houstein \|first1=Stefanie \|last2=Peters \|first2=Isabella \|last3=Sugimoto \|first3=Cassidy R. \|last4=Thelwall \|first4=Mike \|last5=Larivière \|first5=Vincent \|date=April 2014 \|title=Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature \|journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology \|volume=65 \|issue=4 \|pages=656–669 \|doi=10.1002/asi.23101\|arxiv=1308.1838 }}</ref>

Kardashian Index: Difference between revisions