RT @anthonyocampo: my writing was never meant to reverberate in the academy, it was always meant to reverberate with my communities (e.g.,…
RT @anthonyocampo: my writing was never meant to reverberate in the academy, it was always meant to reverberate with my communities (e.g.,…
RT @anthonyocampo: my writing was never meant to reverberate in the academy, it was always meant to reverberate with my communities (e.g.,…
RT @MaxSchemmer: P.S.S.: I really like the link that these authors establish between gender and Kardashianity: https://t.co/LYMikrzPm7
RT @anthonyocampo: my writing was never meant to reverberate in the academy, it was always meant to reverberate with my communities (e.g.,…
RT @familyunequal: The "Kardashian Index" as a measure is ridiculous (https://t.co/HhuI5mdjlV) but the idea of a disparity between influenc…
RT @familyunequal: The "Kardashian Index" as a measure is ridiculous (https://t.co/HhuI5mdjlV) but the idea of a disparity between influenc…
RT @anthonyocampo: all this graph tells me is that i’m doing something right
my writing was never meant to reverberate in the academy, it was always meant to reverberate with my communities (e.g., filipino, queer poc). and until the latter are granted the many many seats we deserve in the former, imma exist—and revel in existing—in
all this graph tells me is that i’m doing something right
P.S.S.: I really like the link that these authors establish between gender and Kardashianity: https://t.co/LYMikrzPm7
RT @FarsaneTV: Oh-oh, my Kardashian index is increasing, twitter follwers are increasing faster than citations 😄 I'm at 1.4 #AcademicChatte…
RT @FarsaneTV: Oh-oh, my Kardashian index is increasing, twitter follwers are increasing faster than citations 😄 I'm at 1.4 #AcademicChatte…
My Kardashian index is 1.3 🤡
RT @FarsaneTV: Oh-oh, my Kardashian index is increasing, twitter follwers are increasing faster than citations 😄 I'm at 1.4 #AcademicChatte…
Oh-oh, my Kardashian index is increasing, twitter follwers are increasing faster than citations 😄 I'm at 1.4 #AcademicChatter #postdocvoice https://t.co/PAGfIi5sDh
RT @familyunequal: The "Kardashian Index" as a measure is ridiculous (https://t.co/HhuI5mdjlV) but the idea of a disparity between influenc…
Possibly late to the party, but still interesting. Kardashian Index calculator https://t.co/4sTzHbVYTf Here is the original paper: https://t.co/YjfqjJjrEG https://t.co/tFK5t9wTR2
RT @familyunequal: The "Kardashian Index" as a measure is ridiculous (https://t.co/HhuI5mdjlV) but the idea of a disparity between influenc…
RT @familyunequal: The "Kardashian Index" as a measure is ridiculous (https://t.co/HhuI5mdjlV) but the idea of a disparity between influenc…
You're right, it was under .20 with those 100. When I added some famous people it went up to .26 (.37 for logged values) .https://t.co/EgF6z9oxB9
The "Kardashian Index" as a measure is ridiculous (https://t.co/HhuI5mdjlV) but the idea of a disparity between influence in different arenas is not. Here are the GS citations and Twitter followers for 105 sociologists & me (correlation = .26 top-coded
I’m undervalued ! I need more followers please ! #Science Kardashian’s it’s maybe time to reconsider our priorities…. Very interesting paper ! https://t.co/5QoQH0lXwY
@GevaertThomas @TijlDeBie @vanranstmarc Nee, wat ècht telt is je KI. https://t.co/t19zh24JFu
Read ➡️ https://t.co/urnQRWzwT4 Now, what are your thoughts on the Kardashian-index? (anonymous poll) #PathTwitter #MedTwitter @KMirza @Sara_Jiang @smlungpathguy @DrFNA @NRiddleMD @drjudymelinek @AllisonHHMartin @pembeoltulu @kidney_boy @bluehatcomics85
@smlungpathguy @KimKardashian @neilhall_uk @NicoleJacksonMD @KMirza @DrFNA @VetPathSurrey You must read the 2014 paper from @neilhall_uk: https://t.co/urnQRWzwT4 Yes, it's (partly) satirical but some valid points are made. Multiple review articles and SoM
Source for "Kardashian of Science," unrelated to Sheldon Cooper's [unfair] description of Geology: https://t.co/thwKU1Qs0q
No dejo sorprenderme cuando me pongo investigar para mis clases 👨🏽💻les presento el Índice Kardashian!! Una forma de medir cuán confiable eres como "influencer" científico pero en la "Twittósfera" (u otra red social) https://t.co/eqUuZRjQtt
@FelipePLMelo Segue o artigo que deu origem ao índice: https://t.co/X2z1gXxtGE
@STS_News Kardashian Index? https://t.co/gah7VOhOFi
RT @NickWolfinger: I like the idea, but I'm skeptical: my K-index is 7.3; my ratio of followers is almost one to one.
I like the idea, but I'm skeptical: my K-index is 7.3; my ratio of followers is almost one to one.
RT @PsychRabble: @PsychPLockwood It is worth it, if only because it led to the development of the Kardashian Index: A scientific metric for…
RT @PsychRabble: @PsychPLockwood It is worth it, if only because it led to the development of the Kardashian Index: A scientific metric for…
I got quite a ways into this link, thank you, not all the way, but I’m calling it a study I’ve read.
@PsychPLockwood It is worth it, if only because it led to the development of the Kardashian Index: A scientific metric for evaluating undue and excessive public influence of scientists who have not really contributed all that much actual science. https://t
RT @Abraham_RMI: The Kardashian Index Reference: https://t.co/fN0wjBLDfA https://t.co/Dm6ajVcBHC
RT @Abraham_RMI: The Kardashian Index Reference: https://t.co/fN0wjBLDfA https://t.co/Dm6ajVcBHC
RT @Abraham_RMI: The Kardashian Index Reference: https://t.co/fN0wjBLDfA https://t.co/Dm6ajVcBHC
RT @Abraham_RMI: The Kardashian Index Reference: https://t.co/fN0wjBLDfA https://t.co/Dm6ajVcBHC
The Kardashian Index Reference: https://t.co/fN0wjBLDfA https://t.co/Dm6ajVcBHC
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for sci…
What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists" by Neil Hall in @GenomeBiology #MedTwitter #MedEd @afrey_vogel @tchanmd @socraticem @laurenmazzurco @JudyGadde @erhall1 ht
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @ab…
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @ab…
RT @G2Disrupt: LOVE how the #MedEd community is turning #EdTech #DigitalSpace #SocialMedia into an academic rigor space with metrics for be…
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @ab…
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @ab…
LOVE how the #MedEd community is turning #EdTech #DigitalSpace #SocialMedia into an academic rigor space with metrics for benchmark #HMIVitual @HarvardMacy
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @ab…
RT @HarvardMacy: What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @ab…
What are we reading in #HMIVirtual this week? "Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion" by @abbashu and colleagues! #MedTwitter #MedEd @felixankel @tchanmd @Jeff__Riddell @mgisondi @MikeGisondi @CabreraERDR @EMEducation https:
¿Indice Kardashian para la divulgación científica en las redes sociales? Interesante estudio publicado en 2014. https://t.co/TgIqBEWjpO https://t.co/Y2w3ZBjz2n
@Andrew_S_Rosen @nanobrumberg @andrewwhite01 It's a manuscript by @neilhall_uk actually! https://t.co/RJN5Orhqu5
@UCDflowerpower @jomcinerney indeed it does; see, https://t.co/3KlA7tvys4
RT @Bogers: @ufukozgul @Twitter Probably only my k-index: https://t.co/XkbM1hpS5K 😂
@ufukozgul @Twitter Probably only my k-index: https://t.co/XkbM1hpS5K 😂
@AshleyGWinter The Kardashian Index can be useful here. https://t.co/8E3bnxVxCn
Mein Kardashian Index - wenn ich mich nicht irre - ist 0,1 😂
RT @enit7677: 😱 my #Kardashian index is 0.411 https://t.co/RJauaLSuoP
😱 my #Kardashian index is 0.411 https://t.co/RJauaLSuoP
RT @PhilWMagness: 1. Original paper by Hall, proposing the Kardashian Index. Yes - he named it in jest, but the paper addressed a serious q…
RT @PhilWMagness: 1. Original paper by Hall, proposing the Kardashian Index. Yes - he named it in jest, but the paper addressed a serious q…
RT @matt_nurse: Like other researchers, such as @jbakcoleman, @GYamey, @K_Sheldrick, @gorskon, @gidMK, @MaartenvSmeden, we make the obvious…
RT @PhilWMagness: 1. Original paper by Hall, proposing the Kardashian Index. Yes - he named it in jest, but the paper addressed a serious q…
I did not have “Kardashian Index” being a legit scientific metric on my 2022 bingo card.
1. Original paper by Hall, proposing the Kardashian Index. Yes - he named it in jest, but the paper addressed a serious question of a reputational mismatch between scientific accomplishment and social media presence. IOW it was an attempt to quantify that
@rebeccawatson No, the original paper even has a "finally on a serious note" section https://t.co/hFRWIpbUp2 https://t.co/G1cfPzuHJN
‘the ‘Kardashian Index’, a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and Twitter followers.’ Why do I feel personally attacked https://t.co/U1ofvtOQgD
The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists | Genome Biology | Full Text #excellent 😂👇 https://t.co/ZYJ9YS9W7e
@climpeter @theresphysics <Whispers><<you didn't get this from me>> https://t.co/oTVyuUl3qq
@PFriedling No, the formula is No. of Twitter followers divided by (43.3 x C^0.32) where C is the number of citations. It was based on a rather simplistic fit presented in this paper. https://t.co/4S7Haq53qw
Oh amazing I looked up the original article and not only is the data from 2014 but it's fit using a sample of N = 40 😀 https://t.co/Qr3uUdSLh0
Like other researchers, such as @jbakcoleman, @GYamey, @K_Sheldrick, @gorskon, @gidMK, @MaartenvSmeden, we make the obvious point that the Kardashian index is *satire*, made clear by the original paper. 5/22 https://t.co/hz0DKgAQLR
RT @carrieprice78: I was today years old when I learned about the K-index (Kardashian Index). Where have I been? https://t.co/NcfU3i5DHT
I was today years old when I learned about the K-index (Kardashian Index). Where have I been? https://t.co/NcfU3i5DHT
Always behind the curve, I finally calculated my #Kardashian Index: It's 1.54. ...so that is ok. Probably more people should listen to, and/or follow, me 😆 https://t.co/r0aYjeaNLe
Περιττό να πούμε οτι ο ίδιος ο συγγραφέας πρότεινε το K-index βασικά κάνοντας χιούμορ: https://t.co/t4pVTgcmtR Άρα αντιλαμβάνομαι οτι όσοι τρίτοι το χρησιμοποιούν σε δημοσιεύσεις, το κάνουν ομοίως χιουμοριστικά... 🤨 Και δε λέω τίποτα άλλο στο ζήτημα.-
@davis_hitt @eatthe1youlove @MaartenvSmeden It's from this garbage https://t.co/6ePAZj5A0s
RT @hspter: Oh do you command attention outside of our established modes of commanding attention? You're no different than this privileged…
Have I got some grim news for the author about citation metrics and their role as a proxy for quality.
اینقدر عقده ای آخه؟ طرف چون مقالههای درپیتش رو توییتر طرفدار نداره رفته یه ایندکس سکسیت درست کرده به اسم کارداشیان. که یعنی آره ما با اینکه رو توییتر کسی تحویلمون نمیگیره، خفن و عمیق هستیم. چندش واقعا. https://t.co/Hc2lcJhToo
RT @Thoughtfulnz: I think reading this paper would make me stupider, so on the basis of the abstract they clear don't rate the importance o…
I think reading this paper would make me stupider, so on the basis of the abstract they clear don't rate the importance of "discrepant" scientific outreach and communication in the middle of a WORLD WIDE PANDEMIC by treating it as building a personal brand
Oh do you command attention outside of our established modes of commanding attention? You're no different than this privileged sex-tape-hawking hussie who we all obviously agree is terrible and is worthy of contempt: https://t.co/6ePAZj5A0s
RT @AdamJKucharski: That tweet lost me 4 followers, so looks like I'm going to have to eat an awful lot of pastries to get my K-index down…
@jbakcoleman And yet, the Kardashian Index is not a joke, having 179 Google scholar citations all by itself, whose author has 29,561 citatations, or around 100x your number of citations. https://t.co/UcNoWLSZMf
RT @AdamJKucharski: That tweet lost me 4 followers, so looks like I'm going to have to eat an awful lot of pastries to get my K-index down…
RT @AdamJKucharski: That tweet lost me 4 followers, so looks like I'm going to have to eat an awful lot of pastries to get my K-index down…
RT @AdamJKucharski: That tweet lost me 4 followers, so looks like I'm going to have to eat an awful lot of pastries to get my K-index down…
RT @AdamJKucharski: That tweet lost me 4 followers, so looks like I'm going to have to eat an awful lot of pastries to get my K-index down…
That tweet lost me 4 followers, so looks like I'm going to have to eat an awful lot of pastries to get my K-index down (https://t.co/4YuZFFXzMg)
If a self-proclaimed "scientist" has a high Kardashian Index, be skeptic about their claims of what's "true science". Doesn't matter if they have a PhD or MD. https://t.co/oZbFr8TBSN
Interesante lectura (corta) Kardashian index. Creo que ayudaría mucho este indicador a diferenciar trabajo científico de popularidad.
RT @cees_dekker: Twitter followers versus number of scientific citations for a sort-of-random sample of researcher tweeters #Kardashianind…