Timeline for How does your productivity change after receiving prizes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 17:27 | vote | accept | Rescy_ | ||
| Feb 19, 2019 at 7:12 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http --> https
|
| Nov 28, 2015 at 16:40 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | @TimothyChow --- Thank you for this very relevant link. I certainly would not wish to imply that "productivity" is a proxy for "impact" or "influence" in any particular field of science, but its quantitative definition as "papers per year" seems quite reasonable (and the OP did ask specifically for "productivity"). Incidentally, starting this year the national research assessment in The Netherlands has dropped "productivity" as one of its criteria for an excellent research group. | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 15:37 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | For some criticism of this article, see ams.org/notices/201503/rnoti-p224.pdf Note that the word "productivity" is a loaded one. If you measured Andrew Wiles's "productivity" (according to some quantitative definition) from 1987-1997 he would score low, and Perelman would fare even worse. But that is probably not what people intuitively mean when they talk about unproductive scientists. (Of course I'm not offering Wiles and Perelman as examples of the Fields medal encouraging future output, but as examples of the dangers of using the word "productivity".) | |
| Nov 28, 2015 at 9:30 | history | answered | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |