RT @hpbsurgeon1: Calling for more red crosses in the Kardashian index! @endocrine_witch @101HealthRsrch @HealthXPh @oliviawriting @LiangRhe…
My K-index has increased to 3.02! Cite us more but follow me less. You are making me a Science Kardashian 🥴
RT @AngelBorjaYerro: Obssesed by your Hindex? No panic: calculate your Kardashian index, based on your #Twitter followers and #scientific c…
Social media makes it very easy for people to build a seemingly impressive persona by essentially ‘shouting louder’ than others. Having an opinion on something does not make one an expert. - @neilhall_uk https://t.co/7gPVIOYjHm
RT @professor_dave: I know this 2014 paper is just a light-hearted bit of fun, but with 14900 Twitter followers and 11038 citations, my 'Ka…
RT @professor_dave: I know this 2014 paper is just a light-hearted bit of fun, but with 14900 Twitter followers and 11038 citations, my 'Ka…
Haha - great study - thanks for sharing @AngelBorjaYerro. I am pleased to say my Kardashian index is <1 🤣
My K-index is only 3.5 which means I don't get cited enough or publish enough and I am not popular in social media. :) But,now that I am done scarfing down lunch, I will now get off twitter and write a paper
RT @AstroMikeMerri: More than a little offended to be a Kardashian. https://t.co/5bRVQZP0UK https://t.co/GsM9RjZKR0
RT @professor_dave: I know this 2014 paper is just a light-hearted bit of fun, but with 14900 Twitter followers and 11038 citations, my 'Ka…
RT @hpbsurgeon1: Calling for more red crosses in the Kardashian index! @endocrine_witch @101HealthRsrch @HealthXPh @oliviawriting @LiangRhe…
RT @hpbsurgeon1: Calling for more red crosses in the Kardashian index! @endocrine_witch @101HealthRsrch @HealthXPh @oliviawriting @LiangRhe…
More than a little offended to be a Kardashian. https://t.co/5bRVQZP0UK https://t.co/GsM9RjZKR0
The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Mine is 4.32, so it’s less than the proposed cut off of 5: “if your K-index gets above 5, then it’s time to get off Twitter and write those papers.” https://t.co/Cgft7LZhCg
I know this 2014 paper is just a light-hearted bit of fun, but with 14900 Twitter followers and 11038 citations, my 'Kardashian Index' is 17.5 - way over 5 - which means, according to the author I should 'get off Twitter and write those papers'. https://t.
Calling for more red crosses in the Kardashian index! @endocrine_witch @101HealthRsrch @HealthXPh @oliviawriting @LiangRhea @WomenSurgeons @womeninsurgery @ProfDemartines @DeliaCortesGuir
RT @juliomayol: I am a #surgicalKardashian 👇 https://t.co/wnhjobmGL9
To quote the Chronicle of Higher Education, ”...not all that’s on Twitter is gold.” I didn’t find the results of this study of Twitter reputations of academics compared to the ”real world” academic impact of those scholars, at all surprising. https://t.co
If viral popularity works for the Khardashians, can it also work for increasing the popularity of scientists? Research shows it can, to a point. But do we want this? https://t.co/kiqeqhOZpZ
very interesting study @neilhall_uk "The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists" https://t.co/zNf5ACrPXV
RT @AngelBorjaYerro: Obssesed by your Hindex? No panic: calculate your Kardashian index, based on your #Twitter followers and #scientific c…
"very few women had a highly inflated Twitter following, while most had fewer followers than would be expected." The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists https://t.co/jPtWJHETVn
RT @juliomayol: I am a #surgicalKardashian 👇 https://t.co/wnhjobmGL9
I am a #surgicalKardashian 👇
@SindreLangaas
Obssesed by your Hindex? No panic: calculate your Kardashian index, based on your #Twitter followers and #scientific citations, if it is >5, stop twetting and start publishing more (mine is 1.5, it's OK), Just funny! https://t.co/ULJ21ST9EC https://t.co
RT @cellkultureco: So... I just found out what a Kardashian Index is 😂 https://t.co/SaC69z997q https://t.co/qNbMH5ahX6
😂 done with internet for the day 😂
So... I just found out what a Kardashian Index is 😂 https://t.co/SaC69z997q https://t.co/qNbMH5ahX6
RT @Undercoverhist: Just realized I might be biggest #econtwitter Kardashian But it can't be b/c I'm working in tiny marginalized field (…
@norabar @janarhertz @JorgeBalmelli @lsqui Academicos del mundo: tendran que incluir Kardashian index en los curriculum? https://t.co/E04rpD0Vuv
RT @Undercoverhist: Just realized I might be biggest #econtwitter Kardashian But it can't be b/c I'm working in tiny marginalized field (…
RT @tkaiser_science: …the ‘Kardashian Index’, a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record ba…
RT @ftmaestre: I am finding that the hilarious #KardashianIndex, introduced in this @GenomeBiology article by @neilhall_uk https://t.co/XOm…
…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 https://t.co/1MEiFwZKxe
I am finding that the hilarious #KardashianIndex, introduced in this @GenomeBiology article by @neilhall_uk https://t.co/XOmZSeD8up is back on Twitter! Using https://t.co/ie9fwgiIkU I found that my index is 3.34 so it seems that I need more followers to b
My Kardashian index is too low to show in public; would exclude it from my CV for a while.🤭😥So sad. Please, anyone give me a hug... and a like! Haha 😂 https://t.co/F6Czkyn5GE
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: The #Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. https://t.co/ZcT2K5yRU3
The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists; by Neil Hall https://t.co/rYaLpPbV8I
RT @CoyneoftheRealm: The #Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. https://t.co/ZcT2K5yRU3
RT @Undercoverhist: Just realized I might be biggest #econtwitter Kardashian But it can't be b/c I'm working in tiny marginalized field (…
Just realized I might be biggest #econtwitter Kardashian But it can't be b/c I'm working in tiny marginalized field (few cites) deploying huge efforts to make it visible No, according to author, my public profile is "overblown" & I should get off twi
@ryanbedwards Published in Genome Biology, of course. https://t.co/F3k7qUdk7r
@WoodinRivers I googled it, there's a paper! https://t.co/4cWHoYUViQ and it's slightly more complicated: K-index = [43.3*citations^0.32]/followers @neilhall_uk
Whew! I'm still under the #KardashianIndex threshold. Solutions: 1) jettison followers until I resemble a more respectable scientist, 2) require new followers to cite me, 3) *don't* let any Tweeps know about my new papers..? https://t.co/qAhVuPBAWd https:/
@DoctorZen which means my Twitter follower count is TWICE more than what I should be getting based on my 'academic output'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://t.co/DBFY8ZxTAp #KardashianIndex https://t.co/QBgwK87a1E
Since the original tweet was deleted, here's the paper they were talking about. Because the Kardashians are women, and their implication that too much social media isn't as valuable as scientific publication -- I still call this misogyny light. https://t.
A thread this morning cued me in on this garbage paper from 2014. https://t.co/OxaqhRoKxo Some nuggets for your morning outrage: https://t.co/7W3psfUmVU
Thanks Neil for the honest and prompt answer 👍🏻 Note: Neil is the creator of the "Kardashian Index" for scientists and #SoMe stars 👇🏻https://t.co/4e1V5XesdV
RT @MicrobiomDigest: @JasonSynaptic @prpayne5 It was even published, in 2014. See: https://t.co/eh52kMdfXc
@Julie_B92 ...they state in the paper ...”shaky statistical ground...” & it has to be biased against the active ones https://t.co/j4HZlZ8IOn
@JasonSynaptic @prpayne5 It was even published, in 2014. See: https://t.co/eh52kMdfXc
From 2014: The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists | Genome Biology | Full Text https://t.co/KyG4JzV6s5
@JohnAHawley @NanciGuestRDPhD You did not make it up. I think that is the Kardashian Index? https://t.co/kzHOIOtQQW
My Kardashian index is 0.39 and I am not sure if that is good or bad. https://t.co/AiMm8OnsO0
@drlauraduggan @mededgene @CriticalCareNow @precordialthump @TEDTalks @TimHarford 😂 Go for it. I’m sure I unconsciously stole it from someone/somewhere. Principle is really from this https://t.co/7WzZLrj3BZ
RT @davidnnaumann: Are you doctors keeping an eye on your Kardashian Index™ ?! Bit nervous calculating mine but [phew]. 😬😂🤣 https://t.co/gy…
RT @davidnnaumann: Are you doctors keeping an eye on your Kardashian Index™ ?! Bit nervous calculating mine but [phew]. 😬😂🤣 https://t.co/gy…
Are you doctors keeping an eye on your Kardashian Index™ ?! Bit nervous calculating mine but [phew]. 😬😂🤣 https://t.co/gyn6Mt6rh6 https://t.co/w8yS4NFgok
@LauraChadwick1, behold.
@hteraG_senoJ My favourite part of the blog is when I learned of the #Kardashian index - a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record https://t.co/fP7bA6BY6Q
Reconocimiento científico por notoriedad en las redes sociales? Calcula tú Kardashian Index!
@ScienceByDRE I think that gives you a Kardashian index of around 2. https://t.co/7xEwjhYelC
元論文はこちら。 “Published: 30 July 2014” けっこう前の論文が最近また取り上げられた感じなんですかね。 The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology. 2014 15:424 https://t.co/PzKGamgoHj
被引用数 C = 11985から予想したフォロワー数は Fc =874だが,実際のフォロワー数は Fa = 1095なので,K指数 = Fa/Fc = 1.25だった.これが5を超えると目立ちすぎらしい!(笑)なお原論文みると著者も統計的に問題あるのは自覚してた(笑) https://t.co/oKdGzPK8ea
RT @hana5298: この記事にでてくる"Kardashian index"とは、SNS(Twitter)での影響力と実際の業績のギャップを可視化するものらしい。 Figureの楕円にあてはまればカーダシアン。 https://t.co/PTLNjFVOGf *セレブの…
この記事にでてくる"Kardashian index"とは、SNS(Twitter)での影響力と実際の業績のギャップを可視化するものらしい。 Figureの楕円にあてはまればカーダシアン。 https://t.co/PTLNjFVOGf *セレブのキム・カーダシアンが特に何を成し遂げたわけでもないのに有名になったことから命名された。 https://t.co/1tZyxEO9QB
@jpmillsphd I thought it was like this... https://t.co/eBnQrbfotL 😜
@AlexDonaldson13 Agreed. And that reminds me of the #KardashianIndex https://t.co/xyHQW1ctDG
even heard of the #Kardashian index? https://t.co/Wm7sCjaMPg - a measure of discrepancy between a scientists' publication record (represented by number of citations) and social media profile (represented by number of #Twitter followers)
@PeterFo98191224 I just followed you back! Now you can start tracking your Kardashian Index like me. https://t.co/uLVAfxw7wY I'm currently at 0.292
RT @barnettc01: Fascinating session re Fake News at #ISMPPEU19 suggests scientists need to get on Twitter, not off https://t.co/4IB6wWWxDH
Fascinating session re Fake News at #ISMPPEU19 suggests scientists need to get on Twitter, not off https://t.co/4IB6wWWxDH
RT @mattjhodgkinson: Do we need a "Kardashian index"? This is asked at #ISMPPEU19. There already is one, comparing a scientist's citations…
RT @Amandality: The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists https://t.co/LVPCRVJIAp @BeierLab - wonde…
RT @Amandality: The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists https://t.co/LVPCRVJIAp @BeierLab - wonde…
Well, would my one follower care to discuss this paper with me? Seriously though, I didn't realise people were that desperate to scream "Me do real science but me no see point of speaking people" https://t.co/04xtxmBtmg
Just discovered the "Kardashian Index". Research paper here: https://t.co/k4wha32OIA K-index > 1 --> "Science Kardashian" K-index == 1 --> about right K-index < 1 --> too busy doing science for social media
RT @Amandality: The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists https://t.co/LVPCRVJIAp @BeierLab - wonde…
The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists https://t.co/LVPCRVJIAp @BeierLab - wonder what your Kardashian index is?
Dear followers and academic users of social media. As we head towards REF2021, let's not get too bogged down with enhancing our 'k-index': https://t.co/P23zrBbhxW
@chngin_the_wrld Paper: https://t.co/xNETTIG16B Interesting concept though not universal...especially for scientists who don't have a lab or the funding needed to keep up with the...um...well...you get the idea.
Un suggerimento a @anvur_ita per la prossima VQR e per ASN: utilizzare il Kardashian index cc: @Redazione_ROARS https://t.co/5Z6ZEjR1mh
0.21. Hm. Guess, you'd better follow me. #kardashian #KimKardashian #KardashianIndex https://t.co/HZ2qs2fZg2
@AnimaAnandkumar @ylecun @InclusionInML Did you read original scientific paper about K-index? It specifically raises awareness of gender bias and historical ignorance of women in sciences: See: https://t.co/LTpLkCvOEQ
My Kardashian index is 0.65. Apparently I am "undervalued"... https://t.co/5b9jQt1Gp5
Method: https://t.co/eL4KbCDf25 "a high K-index is a warning to the community that researcher X may've built their public profile on shaky foundations[..]low K-index suggests that a scientist is being undervalued[..]K-index greater than 5 can be considered
Have you ever heard about the Kardashian index? What do you think about this? I consider it more of a funny article than an actual measure to follow. One cannot possibly judge others based on their scientific impact vs. online activity. https://t.co/KbOwd5
@naomiattar @neilhall_uk Or this one? https://t.co/lE9RYqvHD4
RT @ScottEacott: @kmcg2375 @HelenaGranziera I am not that innovative with stats. Only appropriated @neilhall_uk's Kardashian Index (https:/…
@kmcg2375 @HelenaGranziera I am not that innovative with stats. Only appropriated @neilhall_uk's Kardashian Index (https://t.co/1szucARt5n) as a means to further investigate the 'cult of the guru' in educational leadership.