Interesting article and methodology. I wish you could play with the ranking features to see how the ranking evolves.
I didn't know Kevin Munger. You could definitely seen regarding his field and publications why he would weight 25% of the score to the methodology citations though. Which is partly why his index is very flawed, seeing how qualitative endeavors would be squashed (Qualitative methodologies being very dependant on context). Maybe it does bridge a gap between disciplines that are quantitatively oriented ; STEM and social sciences. The humanities would be nowhere though.
It does beg the question of rankings to begin with ... A dean should know better than to statsmaxx (note the irony).
Interesting article and methodology. I wish you could play with the ranking features to see how the ranking evolves.
I didn't know Kevin Munger. You could definitely seen regarding his field and publications why he would weight 25% of the score to the methodology citations though. Which is partly why his index is very flawed, seeing how qualitative endeavors would be squashed (Qualitative methodologies being very dependant on context). Maybe it does bridge a gap between disciplines that are quantitatively oriented ; STEM and social sciences. The humanities would be nowhere though.
It does beg the question of rankings to begin with ... A dean should know better than to statsmaxx (note the irony).