It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Andrew Wiles missing from the list of 100,000 most cited scientists

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2020 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Researchers compiled a list of 100,000 most cited scientist. To use in academic evaluations. It turned out that the list is missing Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat theorem.

It is not in the article itself. It is in a comment on Research Gate. And the authors confirm this in their reply.

www.researchgate.net...

Can citation numbers be used for academic evaluations?




posted on Nov, 21 2020 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

Andrew, is that you?

Tell us more about Andrew Wiles.



posted on Nov, 21 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Similar to the scientists who do not read the papers they cite forum members do not read the posts they comment on.



posted on Nov, 21 2020 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Similar to the scientists who do not read the papers they cite forum members do not read the posts they comment on.


I read it but admit I didn't understand it all.



posted on Nov, 21 2020 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

The most cited papers are usually methods, such as chemical analysis by a specific technique or using a new reagent. One idea, one time.
Interestingly, one paper with many citations was incorrect and the citations were pointing that out. Consider the number of citations in science to be one of the less important statistics that may or may not reflect on the influence of an individual, much like "time of possession" in a football game.



posted on Nov, 21 2020 @ 06:47 PM
link   
eff it someone buy this guy a beer on my tab please... when your allowed to drink at the bar again



posted on Nov, 23 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: vernichter
Consider the number of citations in science to be one of the less important statistics that may or may not reflect on the influence of an individual, much like "time of possession" in a football game.

I suspect that citation numbers well correlate with the influence of the individual in money distribution.

I do not think that "time of possession" in a football game is a good match to the number of citations, which is a measure o fame. Consider instead the number of media mentions or the number of Google search results for a football player.

A related study found no correlation between popularity and quality of books.







 
7

log in

join