Related papers: Comment: Citation Statistics
Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]
Rejoinder to "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]
Comment on ``Lancaster Probabilities and Gibbs Sampling'' [arXiv:0808.3852]
Comment on ``On Random Scan Gibbs Samplers'' [arXiv:0808.3852]
Comment on "The Need for Syncretism in Applied Statistics" [arXiv:1012.1161]
This is a comment on the paper arXiv:1410.2840 by Ji and Jin, to appear in the AOAS.
This is a comment on two recent arXiv postings.
We discuss the paper "Citation Statistics" by the Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research [arXiv:0910.3529]. In particular, we focus on a necessary feature of "good" measures for ranking scientific authors: that good measures…
Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman [arXiv:1509.03410].
Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman [arXiv:1509.03410].
Comment on "Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited" [arXiv:0804.3173]
Comment on "Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited" [arXiv:0804.3173]
Comment on "Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited" [arXiv:0804.3173]
Comment on "Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability Revisited" [arXiv:0804.3173]
Publicly available data reveal long-term systematic features about citation statistics and how papers are referenced. The data also tell fascinating citation histories of individual articles.
Comment on ``Understanding OR, PS and DR'' [arXiv:0804.2958]
Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)
Comment on "Quantifying the Fraction of Missing Information for Hypothesis Testing in Statistical and Genetic Studies" [arXiv:1102.2774]
Comment on "Quantifying the Fraction of Missing Information for Hypothesis Testing in Statistical and Genetic Studies" [arXiv:1102.2774]
Comment on "Quantifying the Fraction of Missing Information for Hypothesis Testing in Statistical and Genetic Studies" [arXiv:1102.2774]