This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: A relatively new metric, but it has had enough discussion in different sources to warrant inclusion.
Thank you for your feedback. It's true that the c-score is a recently introduced metric, sparking considerable discussion. It's not surprising, as any novel metric or concept typically faces initial skepticism and criticism.
Nevertheless, a segment of the research community has embraced it positively, as evidenced by 2 references cited in the article. In my personal view, it's worthwhile to maintain this article and explore opportunities to enhance its depth and breadth. I will try to add some more strong references.
G-Lignum (
talk) 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The following (strong) argument was found in the web, favouring the metric; it states: The c-score excludes self-citations, normalizes the number of citations by considering the number of authors in each paper, and takes into account first, single, and last authorship. This approach provides a more realistic measure of the impact of each individual researcher based on raw citations.G-Lignum (
talk) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds very positive to me, given that I've often grumbled about those huge multiauthor papers which artifically boost H-factors in some fields.
Klbrain (
talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Klbrain: - Indeed, you raise a valid point. However, this new metric also addresses various other aspects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: A relatively new metric, but it has had enough discussion in different sources to warrant inclusion.
Thank you for your feedback. It's true that the c-score is a recently introduced metric, sparking considerable discussion. It's not surprising, as any novel metric or concept typically faces initial skepticism and criticism.
Nevertheless, a segment of the research community has embraced it positively, as evidenced by 2 references cited in the article. In my personal view, it's worthwhile to maintain this article and explore opportunities to enhance its depth and breadth. I will try to add some more strong references.
G-Lignum (
talk) 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The following (strong) argument was found in the web, favouring the metric; it states: The c-score excludes self-citations, normalizes the number of citations by considering the number of authors in each paper, and takes into account first, single, and last authorship. This approach provides a more realistic measure of the impact of each individual researcher based on raw citations.G-Lignum (
talk) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds very positive to me, given that I've often grumbled about those huge multiauthor papers which artifically boost H-factors in some fields.
Klbrain (
talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Klbrain: - Indeed, you raise a valid point. However, this new metric also addresses various other aspects.