Kardashian Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Kardashian Index (K-Index), named after Kim Kardashian, is a satirical measure of the discrepancy between a scientist's social media profile and publication record.[1][2] Proposed by Neil Hall in 2014, the measure compares the number of followers a research scientist has on Twitter to the number of citations they have for their peer-reviewed work.

Definition[edit]

The relationship between the number of Twitter followers () and the number of citations () is described as:

which is derived from the Twitter accounts and citation counts of a "randomish selection of 40 scientists" in 2014.[1] The Kardashian Index is thus calculated as:

where is the actual number of Twitter followers of researcher and is the number that researcher should have, given their citations.

Interpretation[edit]

A high K-index indicates an over-blown scientific fame while a low K-index suggests that a scientist is being undervalued. According to the author Hall, researchers whose K-index > 5 can be considered 'Science Kardashians'. Hall wrote:

I propose that all scientists calculate their own K-index on an annual basis and include it in their Twitter profile. Not only does this help others decide how much weight they should give to someone’s 140 character wisdom, it can also be an incentive - if your K-index gets above 5, then it’s time to get off Twitter and write those papers.[1]

Hall also added "a serious note" noticing the gender disparity in his sample. Of 14 female scientists 11 had lower than predicted K-indices, while only one of the high-index scientists was female.[1]

On February 11, 2022, on Twitter, Neil Hall stated that he intended the Kardashian Index to be a “dig at metrics not Kardashians” and that “the entire premise is satire”.[3]

Response[edit]

Many jocular indicies of scientific productivity were proposed in the immediate aftermath of publication of the K-Index paper.[2] The Tesla Index measured social isolation of scientists relative to their productivity, named after Nikola Tesla whose work was hugely influential while he remained a social recluse.[4] People tweeted suggestions hashtagged #alternatesciencemetrics[2][5]

In 2022, John Ioannidis authored a paper in The BMJ arguing that signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration about how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic were shunned as a fringe minority by those in favor of the John Snow Memorandum. According to him, the latter used their large numbers of followers on Twitter and other social media and op-eds to shape a scientific "groupthink" against the former, who had less influence.[6] The version of the index that Ioannidis used Scopus citations instead of Google Scholar citations since many of the signatories had no Google Scholar pages.[7]

The K-index suggests that the number of citations of a given scientist is comparable to their scientific value. This assumption has been criticized.[8][9]

The proposal of the K-Index has been interpreted as a criticism to the assumption that scientists should have a social media impact at all while, in reality, social media footprint has no correlation at all to the scientific quality or scientific impact.[10]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Hall, N (July 30, 2014). "The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists" (PDF). Genome Biology. 15 (7): 424. doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0. PMC 4165362. PMID 25315513. Retrieved August 15, 2014.
  2. ^ a b c Griggs, Mary Beth (August 15, 2014). "When Scientists, Social Media, and the Kardashians Collide". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2022-04-17. The paper, meant to be satirical, was titled 'The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists' ....
  3. ^ Hall, Neil [@neilhall_uk] (11 February 2022). "@GidMK @WvSchaik It's a dig at metrics not Kardashians. It's like taking a quiz to see what character from Game of Thrones you are and finding out you're Joffrey Baratheon. It doesn't matter - it's not a real test. Thankfully" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 14 February 2022. Retrieved 21 February 2022 – via Twitter.
  4. ^ Bradnam, Keith (July 31, 2014). "The Tesla index: a measure of social isolation for scientists". ACGT. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  5. ^ Rothkopf, Joanna (2014-08-04). "The Kardashian index and the 10 best #alternatesciencemetrics tweets". Salon. Archived from the original on 2014-08-07. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  6. ^ Knapton, Sarah (February 15, 2022). "Lockdown debate skewed because sceptical scientists were shunned on social media". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved March 3, 2022.
  7. ^ Ioannidis, John (February 1, 2022). "Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy". BMJ Open. 12 (2): e052891. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052891. ISSN 2044-6055. PMC 8829837. PMID 35140152.
  8. ^ "Introducing the "K Index"".
  9. ^ "Citations are not a measure of quality". Archived from the original on 2014-08-19.
  10. ^ Houstein, Stefanie; Peters, Isabella; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Thelwall, Mike; Larivière, Vincent (April 2014). "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (4): 656–669. arXiv:1308.1838. doi:10.1002/asi.23101. S2CID 11113356.

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]