An excellent series by William M. Briggs.
1 Like
…Hmmm … evidence for the validity of the “h-index”? … other than a simple count of papers?
… and because my friend is the curious type I’ll ask the question for him… I wonder how many of Dawkins’ Papers it would take to equal the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?
2 Likes
Depends on granting the assumption that Newton did not plagiarize the entire work.
On the other hand, even if Newton DID plagiarize some or all of his famous works, its still superior to any form of neo-Darwinian synthesis. In fact, my daughter recently finger painted a more coherent premise than Dawkins self-gene.
Let me add my “hear hear!” to your question, having “encountered” Professor Dawkins myself somewhere in my past…
1 Like
Hmm…omnious,this is. 
I mean the method of quantification used in the article. Is it relevant, that is, validated as important?. Quantity does not always mean, in any time frame, quality? Right?
The objective is to apply rigorous statistical analysis to those who promote popularized scientific concepts, despite the inherent issues in epidemiological data. Briggs stands out for his thorough dissection of the foundational assumptions of quantitative methodologies in his publications and presentations. Unlike the untouchable status often afforded to figures like Newton and Dawkins, where criticism is met with significant backlash and professional discredit, Briggs acknowledges the limitations and gamesmanship often associated with academic metrics like the h-index.
Edit: in my humble opinion.
1 Like