A Report prepared by Prof. John P.A. Ioannidis and his team at Stanford University, USA, 2020" which provided ranks of people for different domains in addition to the top 2 % scientists of the world for each domain.
What do you people think about it?
Do you like this?
Should it be done every year?
What are its pros and cons?
Below is link to the paper and dataset and the lists are included in that Link.
Article Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citati...
I had already done that and couldn't find an answer. The various sources and materials aren't easy to navigate. So I guess you don't know either. 🤷🏾♂️
Karl Pfeifer Ali Daud Today I added this answer to another discussion about that report.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_you_know_that_the_list_of_top-2_scientists_list_for_2021_has_been_released
Thank you for sharing the link. But may you please explain what REAL uses and benefits it has for public? As a Scientometrican, I have been trying to reach Stanford University for more than a year that they explain about this list, nobody answers! (Attached please, see one of my emails sent to them a year ago).
Also, If citations work in favor and service of the public, some one show us, what benefits have had those 455004 citations of John P.A. Ioannidis, the main author of that list? (attached photo from his Google Scholar Page).
Also there are researchers from your country that have ideas contrary to (follow this link, if you like)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGtgdn_Mvc
- In this regard, I will be vey glad if anybody wishing to serve for the benefits of the public, all over the world, come forward for a pure scientific "question and answer session" or debate.
- I also invite interested researchers to see my previous discussions, on hidden and unseen misconducts and frauds in the world of academia and "documented discussion" about the problems of the scientific published works of John P.A. Ioannidis.
- https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questionable_but_yet_powerful_phenomena_in_scientific_journals_even_top_ones_is_I_publish_where_I_edit_Obviously_we_can_not_ask_them_why_and_how
- https://www.researchgate.net/post/Bibliometrics_Scientometrics_and_the_like_are_more_harmful_than_useful_in_styles_and_methods_that_are_practiced_now
- https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_one_to_defend_Honorary_forced_authorship_if_not_why_we_practice_it
- https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_your_opinion_dont_we_need_a_World_Prize_like_Nobel_Peace_Prize_to_discourage_Frauds_and_misconducts_in_Sciences
Regards
Vadim S. Gorshkov
And also John P.A. Ioannidis, is the main author of "Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days: To highlight uncertain norms in authorship" (IN HIS OWN WORDS) in nature 12 September 2018 (attached photo).He does so, and then he blames others! What I have been thinking about this article in nature, is that reviewers might get the manuscript anonymously, but what about the editor? couldn't he/she check about the number scientific publications of the main author? and also other issues...
A year ago, there was a hard talk between me and Rob Keller, a Researcher, from the Netherlands, about John P.A. Ioannidis articles and mainly the one that now I mentioned it in this discussion. in the following link (of course I shared the link before)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questionable_but_yet_powerful_phenomena_in_scientific_journals_even_top_ones_is_I_publish_where_I_edit_Obviously_we_can_not_ask_them_why_and_how/1
The whole campaign around and about this list is more about publicity (or reaching publicity) than science (and reliability).
Having observed my predecessors honourable Professors have replied and commented with link evidence, authentic publications of those who have been selected for the Noble Prize from different disciplines.
It is welcomed that concept of delivering the prizes to the notable scientists on their disciplines but what is the criteria of evaluation that they have been selected must be open to the Academic and research communities in the world.
Prof P.A.loannidis Committee had over viewed 🗞️ , measured scientometrics, on what basis these evaluation conducted to select the awardees.
According to Professor Dr.Rahim Alijani has pointed out that the Prof John P A. loannidis, Stansford University, USA has publications and the research projects etc. How the publication process have approved the articles with in five days. It is impossible practically an article(s) published within five days. Everyone is surprising to know that the publication process.
The outstanding Professors have published an article once in five days. If so, how the research manuscripts have been assessed on what metrics and the scores were used for these measurements.
There are many Questions are arising everyone 's mind how these evaluation have been conducted on what basis? Why because we are really suffering to get an article to publish within six months duration.
If things are equally genuine that has to be appreciated and it has to be routinized for all disciplines on every year.
Stephen I. Ternyik You are right and then, here there, virtual and real... they come to congratulate each other, adding that my university, my department has had 5 or 6 or 10 or 73 or what ever they like "researchers in 2% scientist list of STANFORD UNIVERSITY".
All on data and information questionable. From the journal itself, possible reviewers, mainly EDITORIAL BOARD, authors, intentions....
Then on wrong or disinformation they make scientific decisions, those who credited to be in that list may take scientific posts, grants, inviting as editors, appointed as member of scientific decision making Committees ... all unhealthy for science, research and society.
Prof. John P.A. Ioannidis always criticized these quantitative games; dear Rahim Alijani
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
So, it may well be a serious methodical hoax and the full joke will appear afterwards.
And yes, the web is full of entries that laudate themselves with being on the list.
Lou Schmitt My recommendations are not enough to put you there.
Even Karl Pfeifer had problems to navigate the sources.
Ali Daud An annual list might not be enough; a quarterly list would be better, with respect to monitoring the real progress in science.
Lou Schmitt Bibliometrics in science is the new book of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Life
Thank you Stephen - seems very interesting from the part I have read.
Cheers,
Lou
If you need someone else to tell you that you are the best in your branch - you are doing something wrong.
Lou
- I had read the article you mentioned from John P.A. Ioannidis many years ago Dear Stephen I. Ternyik . meaningless, and has bias in several directions. First the journal PLOS is the main Area of Ioannidis power, if you check his name in the entire site of PLOS, you will see by yourself. The title is not Scientific. It is clearly biased, it is not neutral, right away, the person who sees it, wants to read, this is a kind of misconduct and also unethical. I myself find the title offensive, as it says MOST OF US IN THE WORLD OF ACADEMIA ARE SPREADING FALSE FINDINGS. Also bring Anxiety to people outside of academia, what we are doing. All in All Title of the article unacceptable. And for me another sign of his power over PLOS. Other journals even local ones don't allow such a biased title...
- Recently criticisms about that article have had louder voice as you see in attached photo (AAA).
- For several years I have been following his scientific and publication behavior (Ioannidis). I don't understand what he wants from the world, from research, from articles, what is he doing. How a person can be the author of some 80 articles in a year and at the same time criticizes others? does he know the responsibilities of a person whose name is added as an author? What real believable achievements he has had for the public? and other questions. But I have no doubt, soon or late, his name will be entered in such a book, that I have attached a Cover of one.
- By the way, recently in his Google Scholar page he had added erratum to that 2005 article you mentioned. Maybe Science whistleblowers are getting near...
Dear Academics, I am reading your opinions on the intriguing list of a certain prof. John P.A. Ioannidis and his team of associates, and I have some sad reflections. Well, many scientists do not seek in their scientific work a service for society and the mission of discovering, investigating scientific truth, creating theories explaining the regularities of the world or its important elements that affect our existence, but unfortunately a significant number of scientists seek fame and recognition in life and love to others supposedly less developed mentally. They are only producers of cheap and easy-to-consume popular science and they love to make a lot of noise about their name and what they do in their work. My mentor used to say: "Superbia graditur ante lapsum" or "superbientem animus prosternet". Best regards Dariusz
- Dear Professor Dr Senapathy Marisennayya your complaint is right. Partially I refer you to the photo of John P.A. Ioannidis article in that 2018 NATURE article. This is not made by me, but a copy of the real article published there. In that photo we see a sketch of a vey big Octopus reaching its arms to small people. It is clearly a symbol of abuse, so to me it means a sign that both parties (authors and journal officials) agreed on it.
- Even if the reviewers had received the manuscript anonymously, after its publication, could see who were the authors, search and research more about them and ask for clarification. That Octopus and a part of the title: "To highlight uncertain norms in authorship" tell us the authors did misconducts themselves. A person who publishes almost every 4 days an article, has published an article "To highlight uncertain norms in authorship" by others?!
- The other part I refer you to very beautiful and bright contribution of Dr Dariusz Tomasz Grala to this discussion. So in part the journals are doing what ever they think is right for them. The other part is in us, to do researches that public, see and feel its benefits. A method to be/come so is to move to writings and doing research that rely on post publication peer review. I have talked about it in other discussions.
- To be short, this system does not change, we have to find a way. Some 70 years ago Late professor Garfield, the founder of ISI, invented the system to connect articles with the same subjects retrievable. But now ordinary Bibliometrics and Scientometrics have become a great problem for the world of science and people like me, you and others, who have to pay the heavy price. Unseen, Untouched. They only count, the number of your articles, top journals better, Q1 , Scopus, IF, H Index... the research committees don't know or don't want to pay attention to 3G+H authorship (Guest, Ghost...) or simply hidden authorship.
Recently I add my answer to a discussion with this title:
- What is your comments on Prof. Uta Frith's suggestion on restricting every researcher to one paper publication a year?
- https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-your-comments-on-Prof-Uta-Friths-suggestion-on-restricting-every-researcher-to-one-paper-publication-a-year
- Today as I was reviewing John P.A. Ioannidis, Google Scholar Page, He has more than 60 publications, for 2022 up to now. Of course we talked about it before. But now compare two ideas in the world of research, one suggests every researcher one paper one year, the other more than 60 for this unfinished year and collectively more than 2000 published works. You know the system of higher education is not the kind that dictates us what to do or not, but with sharing these sensitive information, we can alert each other and may be some who have bad or unacceptable practices in research get the message.
There is a good chance that the system won't work since humankind seems to have a need to believe that it is more than what it actually is. Symbols have becme a way of life. If they haven't always been.
Lou
- Badges
- Science topic