Talk:Composite index (metrics)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: A relatively new metric, but it has had enough discussion in different sources to warrant inclusion.

Klbrain (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Klbrain:

Thank you for your feedback. It's true that the c-score is a recently introduced metric, sparking considerable discussion. It's not surprising, as any novel metric or concept typically faces initial skepticism and criticism.

Nevertheless, a segment of the research community has embraced it positively, as evidenced by 2 references cited in the article. In my personal view, it's worthwhile to maintain this article and explore opportunities to enhance its depth and breadth. I will try to add some more strong references.G-Lignum (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The following (strong) argument was found in the web, favouring the metric; it states: The c-score excludes self-citations, normalizes the number of citations by considering the number of authors in each paper, and takes into account first, single, and last authorship. This approach provides a more realistic measure of the impact of each individual researcher based on raw citations. G-Lignum (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds very positive to me, given that I've often grumbled about those huge multiauthor papers which artifically boost H-factors in some fields. Klbrain (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Klbrain: - Indeed, you raise a valid point. However, this new metric also addresses various other aspects.