Response to “ideational influence, connectedness, and venue representation: Making an assessment of scholarly capital”

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

I respond to Cueller, Takeda, Vidgen & Truex (2016), who proposes three measures of scholarly output: “1) the extent to which other scholars take up the scholar’s work (ideational influence), 2) who the scholar works with (connectedness), and 3) how well the scholar publishes in venues in the scholar’s field (venue representation)” (p. 3). These are not novel and valid measures of research output. Ideational influence is operationalized as counting citations, which improve current practice but is not novel. Connectedness assesses position in a co-authorship network and rewards the cronies of central players without assessing their output. Venue representation involves counting papers in a different basket, which commits an ecological fallacy. Connectedness and venue representation are based on a common misinterpretation of network centrality measures. Adopting either of these measures in practice would distract from actual impact and so be negative for our field.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-34
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the Association of Information Systems
Volume17
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2016

Keywords

  • Altmetrics
  • Ecological fallacy
  • Network centrality
  • Scholarly capital

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Information Systems

Cite this

@article{ae6d4ee799ff4abbbcaf72c4b433a6b9,
title = "Response to “ideational influence, connectedness, and venue representation: Making an assessment of scholarly capital”",
abstract = "I respond to Cueller, Takeda, Vidgen & Truex (2016), who proposes three measures of scholarly output: “1) the extent to which other scholars take up the scholar’s work (ideational influence), 2) who the scholar works with (connectedness), and 3) how well the scholar publishes in venues in the scholar’s field (venue representation)” (p. 3). These are not novel and valid measures of research output. Ideational influence is operationalized as counting citations, which improve current practice but is not novel. Connectedness assesses position in a co-authorship network and rewards the cronies of central players without assessing their output. Venue representation involves counting papers in a different basket, which commits an ecological fallacy. Connectedness and venue representation are based on a common misinterpretation of network centrality measures. Adopting either of these measures in practice would distract from actual impact and so be negative for our field.",
keywords = "Altmetrics, Ecological fallacy, Network centrality, Scholarly capital",
author = "Crowston, {Kevin G}",
year = "2016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "29--34",
journal = "Journal of the Association of Information Systems",
issn = "1536-9323",
publisher = "Association for Information Systems",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to “ideational influence, connectedness, and venue representation

T2 - Making an assessment of scholarly capital”

AU - Crowston, Kevin G

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - I respond to Cueller, Takeda, Vidgen & Truex (2016), who proposes three measures of scholarly output: “1) the extent to which other scholars take up the scholar’s work (ideational influence), 2) who the scholar works with (connectedness), and 3) how well the scholar publishes in venues in the scholar’s field (venue representation)” (p. 3). These are not novel and valid measures of research output. Ideational influence is operationalized as counting citations, which improve current practice but is not novel. Connectedness assesses position in a co-authorship network and rewards the cronies of central players without assessing their output. Venue representation involves counting papers in a different basket, which commits an ecological fallacy. Connectedness and venue representation are based on a common misinterpretation of network centrality measures. Adopting either of these measures in practice would distract from actual impact and so be negative for our field.

AB - I respond to Cueller, Takeda, Vidgen & Truex (2016), who proposes three measures of scholarly output: “1) the extent to which other scholars take up the scholar’s work (ideational influence), 2) who the scholar works with (connectedness), and 3) how well the scholar publishes in venues in the scholar’s field (venue representation)” (p. 3). These are not novel and valid measures of research output. Ideational influence is operationalized as counting citations, which improve current practice but is not novel. Connectedness assesses position in a co-authorship network and rewards the cronies of central players without assessing their output. Venue representation involves counting papers in a different basket, which commits an ecological fallacy. Connectedness and venue representation are based on a common misinterpretation of network centrality measures. Adopting either of these measures in practice would distract from actual impact and so be negative for our field.

KW - Altmetrics

KW - Ecological fallacy

KW - Network centrality

KW - Scholarly capital

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956970038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956970038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Letter

AN - SCOPUS:84956970038

VL - 17

SP - 29

EP - 34

JO - Journal of the Association of Information Systems

JF - Journal of the Association of Information Systems

SN - 1536-9323

IS - 1

ER -