Citations are usually taken as the standard through which a research is judged, though some universities (Netherlands) has unequivocally contested this view.
Based on the various indicators below, which row would you choose as being the most significant researcher? If you could justify your choice it’s even better.
The impact of what is being reported in the study should be written with a nonexpert reader in mind. The significance of the study should reflect on the extent of the contribution made by the study to improve our understanding, to change a concept or to promote a new hypothesis in a particular field of research.
readings and recommendations are good indications, but citations help to demonstrate your work is actually being used, but I don’t believe this is necessarily a fair kpi, as many good work could end up not being read, only because of few citations
There is no definite answer. The element of subjectivity will always be there. In the given parameters, the research area and time dimension are missing. I mean to say that these 4 parameters may differ based on specific research area and there comparison have sense if they are for similar time periods.
These indicators vary -- All of the 5 researchers work in the same area. 1, 2 and 5 have been working for over 25 years atleast, whereas 3 and 4 have around 15 years of work experience.
Thanks everyone for taking the time out to answer. Indeed its a based on context and the question is subjective.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation