The Kardashian index: a step of discrepant social networks profile for scientists|Genome Biology|Full Text
There are numerous researchers who, with hindsight, did not get much acknowledgment for their achievements while they lived. Think About Mary Anning, a fossil collector and paleontologist who lived in the early 19th century. Her careful recording and respected findings added to the basic modifications in our understanding of natural history, including the accepted view of termination occasions. Yet, due to the fact that of her sex and religions, much of her work was never ever acknowledged by her peers, and I expect you have actually never ever become aware of her. Or Ada Lovelace, the daughter of Lord Byron, who is credited with writing the very first computer program for the Analytical Engine, a mechanical computer created by Charles Babbage. Regardless of her contribution, and apparent genius, she is much less popular than her male contemporaries. For a very long time, the exact same might be said of Rosalind Franklin, whose work on determining the structure of DNA was mainly neglected up until years after her death.It might be no coincidence that all of these neglected heroes were women. I will return to this later.Now think about Kim Kardashian; she comes from a fortunate background and, regardless of having not achieved anything substantial in science, politics or the arts( although apparently she does have a scientific mind [[< a data-track =" click" data-track-action =" referral anchor "data-track-label=" link" data-test=" citation-ref" aria-label=" Referral 1" title=" The Guardian: The scientific mind of Kim Kardashian., [http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/dec/15/scientific-mind-kim-kardashian] href=" https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0#ref-CR1" id=" ref-link-section-d5759e319" > 1]], she is one of the most followed individuals on twitter and amongst the most searched-for person on Google. Her notoriety is stated to have stemmed from an unintended web release of a video including her and a boyfriend in a personal minute. While her Wikipedia entry explains her as an effective businesswoman [[< a data-track=" click" data-track-action=" recommendation anchor" data-track-label= "link" data-test=" citation-ref" aria-label=" Recommendation 2" title=" Wikipedia: Kim Kardashian., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian] href=" https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0#ref-CR2" id=" ref-link-section-d5759e322" > 2]], this is due more than likely to her fame creating substantial income through brand name recommendations. So you could say that her star purchases success, which buys higher celebrity. Her popularity has actually implied that remarks by Kardashian on concerns such as Syria have been widely reported in the press [[click” data-track-action=”reference anchor” data-track-label=”link” data-test=”citation-ref” aria-label=”Reference 3″ title=”BBC News Magazine: #BBCtrending: why Kim Kardashian is tweeting about Syria #SaveKasseb.., L_SQUARE_B.
R_SQUARE_B. ” href=”https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0#ref-CR3″ id=”ref-link-section-d5759e325″>< a data-track="click" data-track-action="recommendation anchor" data-track-label="link" data-test="citation-ref" aria-label="Referral 3" title="BBC News Publication: #BBCtrending: why Kim Kardashian is tweeting about Syria #SaveKasseb., [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26855276] href="https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0#ref-CR3" id="ref-link-section-d5759e325" > 3]] Unfortunately, her interjection on the crisis has actually not yet led to a let-up in the violence.I am concerned that phenomena similar to that of Kim Kardashian may likewise exist in the scientific neighborhood. I believe it is possible that there are people who are well-known for being famous (or, to put it in science jargon, renowned for being renowned ). We are all conscious that certain people are seemingly invited as keynote speakers, not since of their contributions to the published literature however because of who they are. In the age of social media there are individuals who have prominent clinical blogs or twitter feeds however have actually not actually released many peer-reviewed papers of significance; in essence, researchers who are viewed as leaders in their field merely due to the fact that of their prestige. I was just recently involved in a conversation where it was suggested that somebody should be invited to speak at a meeting’ because they will tweet about it and more people will come’. If that is not the research study community equivalent of buying a Kardashian recommendation I don’t know what is.I don’t blame Kim Kardashian or her science equivalents for exploiting their fame, who wouldn’t? Nevertheless
, I think it’s time that we establish a metric that will clearly suggest if a scientist has an overblown public profile so that we can change our expectations of them appropriately. In order to measure the issue and to design a solution, I have compared the numbers of followers that research study scientists have on twitter with the variety of citations they have for their peer-reviewed work. This analysis has actually determined clear outliers, or Kardashians, within the scientific community. I propose a new metric, which I call the’ Kardashian Index ‘, which allows a basic metrology of the over, or under, efficiency of a scientist on social networks.
This content was originally published here.