Content deleted Content added
Add the section on the jocular responses, also the author's own interpretation from the original paper |
m Duplicate word removed |
||
Line 16:
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 'Science Kardashians'. Hall wrote:{{blockquote |text=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 - if your K-index gets above 5, then it’s time to get off Twitter and write those papers.<ref name="originalarticle"/>}}
Hall also added "a serious note" noticing
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>
| |||