0xDE (11011110) wrote,


Chris Leonard and Jeff Erickson have recently posted on the "h-index", an idea proposed by the physicists for ranking researchers in the same research area: your h-index is at least h iff at least h of the papers you've written each have at least h citations. But replacing "researchers" and "citations" in this definition makes the idea a lot more general.

So: say that a research area has meta-h-index at least h, iff at least h of the researchers in the area each have h-index at least h. This would give some indication of the size of a community, how tight-knit it is, and how heavily people in that community tend to cite other work.

I wonder what this would tell us, e.g. about different subcommunities of the algorithms and theory research areas?

I'd be wary of broader comparisons using this measure, though, e.g. between CS and physics, because different citation patterns between the fields could overwhelm any other differences.

ETA: Suresh suggests normalizing the citation counts to reduce the differences between fields. And points out big differences in citation patterns even within areas of computer science that are close enough to theory for him and others to work in both.
Tags: academia, social networks
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded