China is now a scientific power on par with the U.S. and Europe...

[Fred Bloggs]

\"To quantify China’s scientific strength, my colleagues and I looked at citations. A citation is when an academic paper is referenced – or cited – by another paper. We considered that the more times a paper has been cited, the higher quality and more influential the work. Given that logic, the top 1% most cited papers should represent the upper echelon of high-quality science.\"

This woman is a simpleton.

How many of those citations were phonied up by the CCP? Don\'t think for a minute that status-crazed political machine isn\'t putting a citation requirement on all papers intended for publication. \"You will cite this list of Chinese researchers, it\'s up to you to figure out how to do it.\"

Then to measure innovation and creativity:
\"To measure this, we looked at the mix of disciplines referenced in scientific papers.\"

More bs. Any idiot can create a list of references a mile long...it doesn\'t mean they understand or used a bit of it.

https://theconversation.com/china-now-publishes-more-high-quality-science-than-any-other-nation-should-the-us-be-worried-192080

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:19:07 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

\"To quantify China’s scientific strength, my colleagues and I looked at citations. A citation is when an academic paper is referenced – or cited – by another paper. We considered that the more times a paper has been cited, the higher quality and more influential the work. Given that logic, the top 1% most cited papers should represent the upper echelon of high-quality science.\"

This woman is a simpleton.

How many of those citations were phonied up by the CCP? Don\'t think for a minute that status-crazed political machine isn\'t putting a citation requirement on all papers intended for publication. \"You will cite this list of Chinese researchers, it\'s up to you to figure out how to do it.\"

Then to measure innovation and creativity:
\"To measure this, we looked at the mix of disciplines referenced in scientific papers.\"

More bs. Any idiot can create a list of references a mile long...it doesn\'t mean they understand or used a bit of it.

https://theconversation.com/china-now-publishes-more-high-quality-science-than-any-other-nation-should-the-us-be-worried-192080

Too true. Set up a nice simple set of rules for producing a proxy for quality, and some clown will work out how to game them.

And my own experience of people citing my 1996 paper was that two of the 25 citations hadn\'t read it carefully enough, letting me published to two comments (also citing my paper) pointing out how they\'d missed a relevant point. One of them was pretty funny - they\'d claimed 0.1k absolute accuracy while self-heating their temperature sensor 0.2K above ambient.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:19:07 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

\"To quantify China’s scientific strength, my colleagues and I looked at citations. A citation is when an academic paper is referenced – or cited – by another paper. We considered that the more times a paper has been cited, the higher quality and more influential the work. Given that logic, the top 1% most cited papers should represent the upper echelon of high-quality science.\"

This woman is a simpleton.

How many of those citations were phonied up by the CCP? Don\'t think for a minute that status-crazed political machine isn\'t putting a citation requirement on all papers intended for publication. \"You will cite this list of Chinese researchers, it\'s up to you to figure out how to do it.\"

Then to measure innovation and creativity:
\"To measure this, we looked at the mix of disciplines referenced in scientific papers.\"

More bs. Any idiot can create a list of references a mile long...it doesn\'t mean they understand or used a bit of it.

https://theconversation.com/china-now-publishes-more-high-quality-science-than-any-other-nation-should-the-us-be-worried-192080

Too true. Set up a nice simple set of rules for producing a proxy for quality, and some clown will work out how to game them.

And my own experience of people citing my 1996 paper was that two of the 25 citations hadn\'t read it carefully enough, letting me published to two comments (also citing my paper) pointing out how they\'d missed a relevant point. One of them was pretty funny - they\'d claimed 0.1k absolute accuracy while self-heating their temperature sensor 0.2K above ambient.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 8:19:07 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

\"To quantify China’s scientific strength, my colleagues and I looked at citations. A citation is when an academic paper is referenced – or cited – by another paper. We considered that the more times a paper has been cited, the higher quality and more influential the work. Given that logic, the top 1% most cited papers should represent the upper echelon of high-quality science.\"

This woman is a simpleton.

How many of those citations were phonied up by the CCP? Don\'t think for a minute that status-crazed political machine isn\'t putting a citation requirement on all papers intended for publication. \"You will cite this list of Chinese researchers, it\'s up to you to figure out how to do it.\"

Then to measure innovation and creativity:
\"To measure this, we looked at the mix of disciplines referenced in scientific papers.\"

More bs. Any idiot can create a list of references a mile long...it doesn\'t mean they understand or used a bit of it.

https://theconversation.com/china-now-publishes-more-high-quality-science-than-any-other-nation-should-the-us-be-worried-192080

Too true. Set up a nice simple set of rules for producing a proxy for quality, and some clown will work out how to game them.

And my own experience of people citing my 1996 paper was that two of the 25 citations hadn\'t read it carefully enough, letting me published to two comments (also citing my paper) pointing out how they\'d missed a relevant point. One of them was pretty funny - they\'d claimed 0.1k absolute accuracy while self-heating their temperature sensor 0.2K above ambient.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney