@jz_GFZ @TGBaudson @Lab_Journal @burkhard_mstern Konnte ich noch nicht lesen, aber es gibt Arbeiten die sich mit der Quantifizierung von Wissen beschäftigen: https://t.co/RegwfKyjMs (A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge) https://t.co/4GD5pubUaO
RT @LynnDicks: @NikiRust We published a paper in 2011 that devised an impact score based on a study's contribution to questions of quantifi…
RT @LynnDicks: @NikiRust We published a paper in 2011 that devised an impact score based on a study's contribution to questions of quantifi…
@NikiRust We published a paper in 2011 that devised an impact score based on a study's contribution to questions of quantified societal importance. Weak correlation with journal impact factor. Involvement of non-academic authors boosted the score! @profmar
@MargaretJanz Like this http://t.co/TiT8aEBbYv? Also, @altmetric is looking into grey literature possibilities http://t.co/wQRRY8x7bT
@MargaretJanz Like this http://t.co/TiT8aEBbYv? Also, @altmetric is looking into grey literature possibilities http://t.co/wQRRY8x7bT
A new way of measuring reseach impact and priorities.#PLoS: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/4G0ccZQf
RT @Bill_Sutherland A new way of measuring reseach impact: Quantifying the Impact & Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/N9BYz39w
#PLOSONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/oilMNaWA3B First 4 sentences should=NIH mission statement
http://t.co/QCp2LaHSxo Fabulous first three sentences. Should be NIH mission statement.
#PLOSONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/AD8f7Gu59q
#PLOSONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/AD8f7Gu59q
#PLOSONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/AD8f7Gu59q
@richvn @brembs Not directly related but some interesting parallels and differences http://t.co/szBscl9Tht
#PLOSONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/AD8f7Gu59q
Tea chat on single-species studies being essential yet undervalued reminded me of this paper on evaluating paper impact http://t.co/TiCuNCuF
Tea chat on single-species studies being essential yet undervalued reminded me of this paper on evaluating paper impact http://t.co/TiCuNCuF
Via @conservbytes: Good science ≠ good applied science: Impact and relevance of scientific research http://t.co/2zLfWxUg
RT @conservbytes: Good science ≠ good applied science: Impact and relevance of scientific research http://t.co/FfpILuMN
RT @ConLetters: Expert ratings of impact of bee conservation papers have low correlation with journal impact factor http://t.co/qCKuioiQ RT @mattjhodgkinson
RT @conservbytes: Good science ≠ good applied science: Impact and relevance of scientific research http://t.co/FfpILuMN
RT @conservbytes: Good science ≠ good applied science: Impact and relevance of scientific research http://t.co/FfpILuMN
RT @ConLetters: Expert ratings of impact of bee conservation papers have low correlation with journal impact factor http://t.co/qCKuioiQ RT @mattjhodgkinson
RT @conservbytes: Good science ≠ practical science: Impact and relevance of scientific research http://t.co/dSVaw7b6
Impact factor of journal doesn’t predict ‘impact’ of research. Work by @Bill_Sutherland in @PLOSOne http://t.co/mTJ9QPu4 HT @conservbytes
Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research - http://t.co/CqRjWbou
Good science ≠ good applied science: Impact and relevance of scientific research http://t.co/FfpILuMN
RT @ConLetters: Expert ratings of impact of bee conservation papers have low correlation with journal impact factor http://t.co/qCKuioiQ RT @mattjhodgkinson
Expert ratings of impact of bee conservation papers have low correlation with journal impact factor http://t.co/qCKuioiQ RT @mattjhodgkinson
Measuring 'impact' will be fun in REF MT @mattjhodgkinson Ratings impact have low correlation w/ journal IF http://t.co/StUSW69U #altmetrics
@mattjhodgkinson: "Expert ratings of impact of bee conservn papers have low correlation with journal impact factor" http://t.co/ucYWmBbi
Expert ratings of impact of bee conservation papers have low correlation with journal impact factor http://t.co/3UW55n07 #altmetrics
How should we measure the impact of scientific research? Article: http://t.co/SjW32Vnc Paper: http://t.co/Qvl2VAOK
PLoS ONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/Uu2LnbTE
PLoS ONE: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/95REdqKg
Could we do same for #architecture? | Benefits of scientific #research quantified (via @research_uk & @NERCscience) http://t.co/gslH7lBQ
RT @Bill_Sutherland A new way of measuring reseach impact: Quantifying the Impact & Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/N9BYz39w
A new way of measuring reseach impact and priorities.#PLoS: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/4G0ccZQf
#PLoS: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/FA4Fx7JU alternatives for citation index
Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/8bSVksUx via @wmijnhardt and @Wowter
RT @luizbento: #PLoS: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/wXdaVG1v @sibelefausto
#PLoS: Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research http://t.co/wXdaVG1v @sibelefausto