The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. She has some highly-cited research, including first-authored papers with Google Scholar citation counts 325, 163, 59, 46, ... and several others with even more citations on which she was not first author. The article is puffed up with minor and non-notable accomplishments and badly-sourced evaluations of her work, and it could use being severely trimmed back, but I think this is enough for a borderline pass of
WP:PROF#C1. I note also that the nominator is a
WP:SPA whose login (judging from its name) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of hiding the identity of a more-experienced editor (one who at least is familiar with our academic notability guidelines, not true of most new editors); to me that looks like a likely case of
WP:BADHAND "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your input. The number of citations, particularly considering how variable the ranges are from field to field has never been a criterion for notability inside/outside of Wikipedia. And yes, you are right, I'm an experienced user and for obvious reasons decided to make this suggestion using a temporary username, which is not against policies. But please let's focus on the topic of the discussion and not my identity. Please also note nomination for deletion is not vandalism (per definition of badhand)
RoxMosDel (
talk)
00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. So my new method of analyzing notability in a way that normalizes to subfield is to look at a few credential parameters in both the subject and their coauthors using
Scopus. This allows people in very low-cited topics a better chance of gaining NPROF C1, and mediates the appearance of high citation counts for people who publish in extremely high-citation/publication subfields. I look at the subject's and their coauthors' current professional position, PhD graduation year, total number of citing documents (slightly different from total cites), number of publications,
h-index, and cite count of highest-cited paper overall, as first author, and as senior (last) author. I'll fill in the position and PhD year at a later point, but here are Dr. Moslehi's coauthors from her 3 highest-cited papers (
1,
2,
3), her most recent paper (
3), highest-cited first-author paper (
4), and highest-cited last-author paper (
5). I've bolded the people with much better credentials and italicized those who are comparably-credentialed.
author metrics
Caption text
Name
Professional position
PhD grad year
Total citing docs
# Publications
h-index
Overall highest cite
Highest first-author cite
Highest senior-author cite
Roxana Moslehi
assoc. prof, SUNY Albany
2000
2421
43
20
559
254
32
Steven Narod
TBD
TBD
36799
832
120
4916
660
2544
Harvey Risch
TBD
TBD
15878
172
69
2475
633
633
Anne Dørum
TBD
TBD
2482
60
22
886
102
46
Susan Neuhausen
Morris & Horowitz Families Professor,
City of Hope
From these numbers, it appears her subfield has exceptionally high publication rates and citations. Among all her coauthors, including those who are undergrads with 1 paper, the (median, average, Dr. Moslehi; italicized when comparable, bold when much higher) for each of the parameters is: total citing docs: (2482, 8557, 2421); total pubs: (60, 155, 43); h-index: (24, 37, 20); citation of highest cited papers: overall: (559, 1268, 559), first-author: (118, 268, 254), last-author: (53, 249, 32). Among coauthors with 10 or more pubs: (7008, 11892, 2421); (144, 217, 43); (43, 51, 20); (984, 1680, 559); (248, 374, 254); (169, 350, 32). Considering only NPROF C1, based on these metrics, I would lean towards delete (not a !vote), as she does not appear to be highly cited in her field. If she has considerable independent media references she might just meet other NPROF criteria.
JoelleJay (
talk)
20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Lainx, do you consider every professor in any field who has 2–3000 citations notable? I've only recently started voting in academic AfDs, but from assessing citation counts and h-indices using Scopus it's become very clear that subfields differ enormously in the typical values for those metrics. For example, in pure math 250 citing docs and an h-index of 9 can be
notable, but there are also fields where the average post-doc with 5+ years working can have like 3000 citations and an h-index of 25. Surely different criteria should be used depending on the subfield?
JoelleJay (
talk)
06:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. She has some highly-cited research, including first-authored papers with Google Scholar citation counts 325, 163, 59, 46, ... and several others with even more citations on which she was not first author. The article is puffed up with minor and non-notable accomplishments and badly-sourced evaluations of her work, and it could use being severely trimmed back, but I think this is enough for a borderline pass of
WP:PROF#C1. I note also that the nominator is a
WP:SPA whose login (judging from its name) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of hiding the identity of a more-experienced editor (one who at least is familiar with our academic notability guidelines, not true of most new editors); to me that looks like a likely case of
WP:BADHAND "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your input. The number of citations, particularly considering how variable the ranges are from field to field has never been a criterion for notability inside/outside of Wikipedia. And yes, you are right, I'm an experienced user and for obvious reasons decided to make this suggestion using a temporary username, which is not against policies. But please let's focus on the topic of the discussion and not my identity. Please also note nomination for deletion is not vandalism (per definition of badhand)
RoxMosDel (
talk)
00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. So my new method of analyzing notability in a way that normalizes to subfield is to look at a few credential parameters in both the subject and their coauthors using
Scopus. This allows people in very low-cited topics a better chance of gaining NPROF C1, and mediates the appearance of high citation counts for people who publish in extremely high-citation/publication subfields. I look at the subject's and their coauthors' current professional position, PhD graduation year, total number of citing documents (slightly different from total cites), number of publications,
h-index, and cite count of highest-cited paper overall, as first author, and as senior (last) author. I'll fill in the position and PhD year at a later point, but here are Dr. Moslehi's coauthors from her 3 highest-cited papers (
1,
2,
3), her most recent paper (
3), highest-cited first-author paper (
4), and highest-cited last-author paper (
5). I've bolded the people with much better credentials and italicized those who are comparably-credentialed.
author metrics
Caption text
Name
Professional position
PhD grad year
Total citing docs
# Publications
h-index
Overall highest cite
Highest first-author cite
Highest senior-author cite
Roxana Moslehi
assoc. prof, SUNY Albany
2000
2421
43
20
559
254
32
Steven Narod
TBD
TBD
36799
832
120
4916
660
2544
Harvey Risch
TBD
TBD
15878
172
69
2475
633
633
Anne Dørum
TBD
TBD
2482
60
22
886
102
46
Susan Neuhausen
Morris & Horowitz Families Professor,
City of Hope
From these numbers, it appears her subfield has exceptionally high publication rates and citations. Among all her coauthors, including those who are undergrads with 1 paper, the (median, average, Dr. Moslehi; italicized when comparable, bold when much higher) for each of the parameters is: total citing docs: (2482, 8557, 2421); total pubs: (60, 155, 43); h-index: (24, 37, 20); citation of highest cited papers: overall: (559, 1268, 559), first-author: (118, 268, 254), last-author: (53, 249, 32). Among coauthors with 10 or more pubs: (7008, 11892, 2421); (144, 217, 43); (43, 51, 20); (984, 1680, 559); (248, 374, 254); (169, 350, 32). Considering only NPROF C1, based on these metrics, I would lean towards delete (not a !vote), as she does not appear to be highly cited in her field. If she has considerable independent media references she might just meet other NPROF criteria.
JoelleJay (
talk)
20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Lainx, do you consider every professor in any field who has 2–3000 citations notable? I've only recently started voting in academic AfDs, but from assessing citation counts and h-indices using Scopus it's become very clear that subfields differ enormously in the typical values for those metrics. For example, in pure math 250 citing docs and an h-index of 9 can be
notable, but there are also fields where the average post-doc with 5+ years working can have like 3000 citations and an h-index of 25. Surely different criteria should be used depending on the subfield?
JoelleJay (
talk)
06:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.