Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Citation counts becoming less reliable as a marker of academic success

See a recent story in Science, [1], where Clarivate has removed all of mathematics from its listings of highly cited researchers because groups of lesser mathematicians have been found to be manipulating the citation counts by over-citing each others' work. In my own editing, I've been finding myself relying more and more instead on fellowships of major societies (#C3) as a way of identifying top researchers that is less susceptible to manipulation and to universities promoting themselves by giving names to all their faculty. But even there I've occasionally seen people with notable society fellow titles whose research looks like highly-cited junk to me.

I'm not convinced that it's time to ditch #C1 yet, but this is at least a sign that we need to be careful with it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that seems to be true. Anything that is used as a proxy for performance in such a way is subject to such gaming. There is a lot of truth in the old adage (I can't at the moment remember who it is attributed to) that if someone's pay depends on it that anything will be twisted. We do however, have to recognise that Americans (and English speakers in general) have for a long time tended to cite mainly other Americans (and etc.). It seems a little odd that this tendency has come to light only when the Chinese and others have behaved in the same way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Anything which makes academics subject to WP:GNG would be fine by me. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That would not be my preference. Then we would get notability based on whose university has the best hype machine, not an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There has always been a problem with manipulation of citations. The remedy is careful study of each case and a background knowledge of citation culture and the field of study at hand. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

I still believe that if you're a professor who hasn't been written about in secondary sources, you're not a notable professor. Would make this consistent with the rest of the project as well. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You are reasoning circularly based on a fixed idea of how "notable" is defined for Wikipedia. It is not convincing as an argument for why such a definition should be appropriate for academics. And you know what they say about consistency. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no good argument for why academics should be the exception to the rule, though. SportingFlyer T·C 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The argument for any rule is: does it select as notable the topics we think should be selected as significant? Basing inclusion on hype rather than recognized scholarly accomplishments does not do that. Following a rule merely because it is a rule or merely because it is consistent misses the point. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In many cases, a professor's work has been described substantially in secondary sources. See my essay. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Then the article should be on the work instead of the person? I read the essay but still really don't see how this is any different from a cricketer who hasn't received SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No, not normally; the bio should still be the main article. But I'm not sure these are really the cases we are talking about here. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If a footballer's performance in a specific match was discussed in detail years later, are you saying you wouldn't count that towards notability?

And what makes more sense, writing standalone pages on every research article that is described in substantial detail in other academic papers by independent authors, or deciding that a few dozen such descriptions--spread across multiple papers spanning several decades--where the work is attributed in prose to a particular researcher ought to be collected on one page on that researcher instead? JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Goodhart's law. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've always wished Scopus would report how many articles by different people (and institutions) cited a given researcher, on top of the "total citations" and "total documents" parameters and the "remove self-citation" function. What would citation graphs look like if we only counted articles that had no N authors (or no senior authors) in common with any prior citation? I imagine the rate at which a researcher's citations approaches subfield saturation might be informative as to how broad an impact their scholarship has had. This wouldn't work with some fields, like consortia-heavy HEP or pure math, but I don't think the normal C1 citation counts are applicable to those anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It would not be unheard of for fringe mathematicians to have citations from other names whose existence outside of those citations is difficult to verify. Names such as, for instance, L. Kuciuk of the University of New Mexico. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW MathSciNet does provide this information. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've never found MathSciNet's citation counts to be very informative. They miss too much stuff. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the community has always been careful of citation counts (distinguishing citation counts per field). While citation counts may not the best metric to determine the notability of an academic, they way they are used by this community make a certain amount of sense. Generally junior researchers have low(er) citation counts, while senior researchers generally have high(er) citation counts. So, the metric does fit within our fuzzy understanding of notability across the project. I do not see harm to the project if an academic with lower citation counts ends up with a stand-alone page (assuming all the information is verifiable). - Enos733 (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both the discussion emphasis on caution with h-factor, while at the same time retaining them. To me an h-factor is more one of several bars that they should pass, I would be very reluctant to call someone notable just on that unless it was > 100. Unfortunately fellowships of major societies also have to be analyzed with some care to see if they are real achievement versus those given out when someone has paid their dues for some years. (Yes, the latter do exist.) In the end this is going to be the same as grading exams -- we will never get it 100% right, but with care probably 90% right and there is no better metric. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just as @Enos733 was saying that "the community has always been careful of citation counts (distinguishing citation counts per field)" we have here another testament to the opposite happening. h>100 might not be too high a bar in multi-authored, high citation, short article fields, but it is more than an order of magnitude too high for single-authored, low citation, book-as-norm fields. In musicology, I know of exactly one author who has written 100 articles in her career. The second highest scholar H-indexes for various (non-computational) musicology subfields in Google Scholar are 7 for baroque music, 12 for medieval music, 7 for twentieth-century music, etc. -- why so low? For one, Google doesn't know how to extract citations properly from discursive footnote citation styles. How to fix this? No magic bullet, but second guessing the decisions of scholarly academies seems the wrong direction, not the right one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that in fields where h>100 is not extremely rare (such as high energy physics) it is non-rare because of huge collaborations where everyone is listed as a coauthor on every paper. H-index is again not very useful in such circumstances, unless maybe it can be restricted to first-author papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think h-index or citation counts (at least how we normally approach them) are applicable to most humanities, book-heavy, or conference proceedings-focused fields in general. They're really only reasonable for fields where senior researchers publish 50+ articles and have multiple coauthors on each paper. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation data are useful, but never definitive, when compared to peers within the same field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC).

I 100% agree with @Xxanthippe, they are useful but one has to look for more. (N.B., my "100 citations" was only meant to indicate a big number, not more. Of course discipline weighted, and co-author weightings are relevant. Please note that not everyone with high citation numbers has multiple coauthors. One of my favorites is Mike Ashby ) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but if we didn't have #C1 he'd still be a shoe-in for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I only mention multiple coauthors because it's much easier to assess relative impact in a field when someone has 50+ (ideally 100+) coauthors whose Scopus citation profiles can be compared to theirs. Ashby has 226 coauthors, more than enough to gauge where he is in relation to the median and average total citations, h-index, paper count, and top five paper citations among the researchers with the most similar field specialization (this is the type of analysis I employ in select STEM academic AfDs). JoelleJay (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Even when normalized by subfield, aggregate statistics such as you describe can mislead for researchers who work in multiple subfields with significant differences in their citation patterns. A recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Shende. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I generally avoid those (as I did with Shende). And when I come across a coauthor with a wildly different publication area from any of the other coauthors I censor them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This will eventually solve itself when someone successfully applies the equivalent of PageRank to citations. Various attempts to create CiteRank have been made, and I'm not sure of the current state of affairs. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Hi, I came here wanting to open a new thread exactly about the topic being discussed here. I see in many AfD discussions the argument "they have an h-index of 34, so they are notable", being used too often. I was reading just a couple of days ago a systematic review showing how the correlation between the h-index and the number of scientific awards, at least in physics, is now 0.00 (i.e.: no correlation whatsoever, the h-index is not an indicator of the impact on the field). Here's the full text for those who are interested: [2]. My suggestion: remove the highly cited requirement of C1, as the number of citations is no longer linked to the impact of the research output. There are other ways to verify if a person has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, by showing awards or mentions of their work in secondary sources, without the need to rely on the number of citations. It has been shown in a cross-discipline study ([3]) that "the more authors a paper has, the more probably it will be cited"; an author who had numerous minor contributions to collaborative work would be considered notable on Wikipedia, while they most likely aren't. Broc (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Unfortunately people will continue to "spin" h-factors no matter what we say here. I would strongly support somehow wording the criteria to say something like "high citations coupled with scholarly recognition in the wider community". What "high citations" means should be clearly spelt out as a relative metric in the main page, as should "scholarly recognition". Ldm1954 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support such rephrasing, and I would even go as far as explicitly stating that a large number of citations alone does not fulfill C1. Broc (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The citation metric is not to show who should have a stand-alone article, but is a recognition that discussions of another person's work alludes to this phrase in WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Again, as I mentioned earlier, and elsewhere, citation metrics generally favor senior academics, which makes sense. - Enos733 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that there is a footnote to that sentence: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. If that's the case, there should be plenty of sources available to show the notability of the academic in question, without having to rely solely on the number of citations they received. Too often are pages of academics just a copy of their resume from the university website, plus some passing mentions elsewhere. If it wasn't for C1, they would not be able to fulfill WP:GNG. Yet, according to C1, if they are "highly cited" they are presumed notable, even if no historian will ever write about them. Broc (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We could stop acting as if we were an appointments committee and just take the results of real ones by saying that a professor or higher is notable and an associate professor or lower is not (at least under WP:PROF). That would bring us into line with many Wikipedias in other languages, and do away with many time-wasting arguments here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That won't work because of the wide variety of standards that exists. A post-doc at Harvard (at least before the recent fracas) would be more likely to pass WP:Prof than many a full professor at a mid-western Cow college. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC).

@Phil Bridger could you please make some examples of other language wikis that have such criterion? Broc (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Broc This will heavily depend on the field. HEP and other experimental physics, and subfields heavy with million-author consortia papers: citation counts are worthless, I agree. But in subfields with fewer authors per paper and fewer papers per person, citations can still be meaningful.

I've done a lot of analyses of Scopus metrics at AfD, and in many cases I think such data when compared to the metrics of the subject's senior-scientist-level coauthors can be informative as an exclusionary criterion--that is, the subject having a markedly less impressive citation profile than that of their median or average (post-postdoc) coauthor can be suitable evidence against academic notability when the other NPROF criteria are not met or are marginal.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

However, as evidence for academic notability I think more caution and holistic assessment is necessary unless the citation profile is significantly more impressive for the subject than their typical peers,[14][15] and even then we should be mindful of coauthor composition. Someone from a university not widely known to produce quality research, who only publishes with people in similar positions, and whose work is generally found in mid-level or lower journals, may have metrics well above those of their average coauthor but unremarkable when compared to the subfield in general.[16] JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay I like the idea of a holistic approach but it would make it almost impossible for a general user (that is, someone who is not extremely familiar with "how citations work" in academia) to express their judgment as to whether a page of an academic is notable or not, if C1 would be the only applicable criterion. I find the approach quite valid though, and I wonder: if we were to use it, would there be a possibility to create a script that returns a comparison between the author and their co-authors? That would make the evaluation much simpler.

On a more general note however, the scientific community has not been able to agree yet on a universal, cross-discipline method to evaluate the quality of scientific output based on citation metrics, so I wonder why should Wikipedia try to do it? Why should we establish criteria that the academics themselves have not yet agreed on using? In my opinion, if C1 is the only argument towards notability, and no WP:SIGCOV can be found, the person should not be considered notable. If they really had an impact on the field, surely someone would be talking about them, regardless of how many or how few citations they received. Broc (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

More strongly the organizational bodies of some disciplines of academia have explicitly rejected citation metrics as an evaluation criterion. The one I know about is mathematics but I wouldn't be surprised if this is also true for some of the more humanities-leaning disciplines. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I really wonder if we should strike any mention of number of citations from C1. Broc (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe at some time in the past they were meaningful, but no longer. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I do use a python script sometimes to scrape out the relevant data, but I often have to go through manually reconstructing h-indices from split Scopus profiles anyway so generally I go in manually from the start. I should also mention that I only do these citation profiles for select subdisciplines (mostly biology, chemistry, medicine) and actively avoid anything related to HEP, math, conference-heavy fields, and most humanities for the reasons mentioned in this thread. And in the situations where my Scopus analyses demonstrate significantly higher metrics for the subject compared to their coauthors, I will look through the citations for lengthy passages describing their work specifically that could be used to write their biography research section (and might count towards GNG). JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A propos of nothing, maybe: I was looking at Draft:Mahmoud Abdel-Aty, which was in mainspace; please see the history for how much worse it was. This person was the top 10 highest-cited person on the Clarivate list, and one of the highest-cited ones four years in a row. Google Books is insightful: plenty of citations, but text about him, not so much, if at all--the one thing I did find was just mundane. I think DGG said this, years ago: citations will not help us write an article, and if we have to write an article based on nothing but university faculty pages and (in this case) user-submitted resumes on conference webpages, then what are we writing. I cannot help but think that "citation" is a trick of some kind, some kind of circular mechanism, like a walled garden. I'll repeat what I said in an AfD earlier: in too many cases citations are merely dropped in to make it look like someone did a lot of research, when all they do is refbombing. In my experience, that's sociology and in some cases history--but I'll admit I haven't done a comprehensive study, and I certainly can't cite one. No, I'm all for changing/dropping/whatever. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

He is an excellent example of why raw h-factors are not reliable. Please compare his h-factor to that of others in his area, Quantum Information. By comparison it is not high. This is why broader recognition is critical, as has been stated by many above. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggested modification of Criterion C1

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well.

1. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.
   • To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.
   • In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose.
   • Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure.
2. Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
3. The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses.
4. There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others.
5. For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.
6. For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, cancer genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects.
7. Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.
8. Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.
9. Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g., having a small Erdős number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.
10. Citation metrics alone (e.g., number of citation, h-index) are not sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, but can be used in combination with other criteria to establish notability.

What do we think? Broc (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

i think in "j" it is better to have "Criterion 1, but should be used,..." Add parts of what was "a", enduring that it is clear it is not enough.

(N.B., you could also just edit "a" to indicate that it is not enough as a minimum change alternative.) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a valuable suggestion and I agree to it, thanks. I might create an updated version based on the results of this discussion. Broc (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a problem that needs solving around criteria 1, unlike clarification that may be needed for deans, vice-presidents, vice-chancellors, etc. Criteria 1 really only is applicable to edge cases when a stand-along article is created. This addition makes discussions at AfD more difficult for all participants as there will be a less-agreed upon metric to evaluate whether a subject should have a stand-alone article. - Enos733 (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this change without some counterbalancing change. This would severely gut our academic notability standards, which currently generally run at the level of full professor at a research university usually passing, assistant professor even at top universities usually not passing. The rest of the criteria are all calibrated to significantly more advanced levels of academia than that. In practice, #C1a is used for the vast majority of academic notability cases. It is problematic, as the above discussion indicates, but making this change and then applying it could well lead to the deletion of a large majority of our articles on academics. If we want to decimate our coverage of academics, and leave Wikipedia biographies to sportsballers and celebrities, that should be a deliberate decision, based on an actual analysis of how many biographies of academics we think we should have (and analysis of whether being excessively selective might amplify the biases in our coverage), not merely the side effect of reading a paper by some experimental physicists noticing that bibliometrics don't work very well in experimental physics. If, as I think was intended, we merely want to tweak our criteria to handle the issue that bibliometrics don't work well in some specific fields, then we should tweak them, not knock over the main support beam with a sledgehammer. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein I completely understand your concerns, but I see it in a different way: if, as you mention, many pages of academics uniquely fulfill C1a and no other NACADEMIC criterion, nor GNG, those pages will most likely look like a copy of the subject's resume, given no other sources will be available (no awards, no honors, no appointments to editorial boards, no fellowships, no coverage in the press...), and please remember that WP:NOTRESUME.

I am uniquely concerned that pages who are uniquely sourced on resumes are kept at AfD because of a very debatable interpretation of C1. Such AfD discussions usually are focused on whether the number of citations is enough, or whether an h-index of 32 is high for a specific field, while the real matter we should be discussing is: is there sufficient material on this person to write a decent encyclopedia page?

To address more directly your argument: a vast majority of academics that fulfills C1a also fulfills other C1x and additional NACADEMIC criteria. This change would uniquely affect discussions on whether an academic is notable or WP:MILL that are uniquely based on the number of citations. Citation metrics can and should be used together with the other sub-criteria to verify C1 (hence my addition of paragraph j), but simply not by themselves. Broc (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If there are a 1000 citations to a person's work, then that is 1000 available sources we can use for an article about them (and their work). The core logic of WP:PROF is that sources about a scholar's work can be considered together with sources about other aspects of their life. It's not saying that high citations are a indicator of notability in lieu of sources, it's saying that those citations are the sources.

That a lot of academic biographies merely summarise the subject's CV is a different problem altogether. I think it happens because it's usually quite easy to write an "Education and career" section based on primary sources (preferably not a literal CV, but institutional profiles, author blurbs, speaker biographies, etc.) and much more difficult to trawl through hundreds or thousands of citing papers to come up with a summary of their work based on secondary sources. So even though the latter is the more significant and notable element of the biography, it often gets left out. But this isn't a problem of notability; the solution is to expand the article, not delete it. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the discussion is having a bit of scope creep. We are not debating what WP:PROF is nor whether academics should be subjected to WP:GNG as was suggested as some point above (and I don't believe they should). What we are debating is C1, which says an academic is likely notable if the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed.

What I am trying to say with my proposal is that citation metrics (number of citations, h-index, cross-comparison with h-index of coauthors or even coauthors of the coauthors, or whatever other method) are not a valid cross-discipline approach, and I honestly don't even know if they are valid for any discipline at all.

They might be an indication of the research output of a scholar, but they say absolutely nothing about the impact on the field of research. The reason for this is that as soon as a metric is established, people will try to improve that metric by artificially conflating their citations. Hence we should not rely on citation metrics as the only way to establish notability.

Ironically, this was the subject of an xkcd comic two days ago. Broc (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this discussion strikes to the core of how WP:PROF should be interpreted and ultimately, which academics should have a stand-alone page under WP:NBIO.

One thing that should also be considered is the relationship between NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. While it is helpful if SNGs are logically consistent, the way the community has interpreted NAUTHOR is that several book reviews is sufficient to meet the expectations for a stand-alone page. This is even if the reviews provide scant information about the author's personal life, I bring this up since citations perform a very similar function for this community - reviews of the work (but are treated differently in the sense that it takes a lot more citations to get an academic over the bar). - Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is possible to interpret C1a, and the fact that it takes many citations to get over the bar, as an extra barrier to entry for academics, a way to make it harder for them to get in rather than easier. If instead we evaluated academics purely by the principle that multiple in-depth independent sources about them or their work are sufficient, then essentially every published mathematician would be notable, by virtue of having in-depth reviews of their papers at zbMATH and MathSciNet (see, for instance, recently closed as redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Houston (mathematician) and in-depth coverage of his papers at sources like [17] [18] [19]; MathSciNet is similar but subscription-only). Similarly, for WP:AUTHOR we generally require multiple books to be reviewed (see for instance ongoing AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Pilkington) whereas even one book with multiple reviews would pass the criterion of having multiple in-depth sources about the subject's contributions. We don't generally raise the argument that this sort of coverage meets GNG, because PROF and AUTHOR impose stronger standards on what sort of sourcing on academic publications is needed for notability, but if C1a were eliminated it would open the door to this kind of argument instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say in most STEM fields the vast majority of (independent) citations someone has are going to be non-substantive refs (don't describe the paper cited but just mention a finding in passing) and/or describe work the subject was coauthor on but not a major contributor to. But the chances that several citations actually do discuss the subject's research in depth and attribute it to them as a major contributor will increase the more they are cited, the more seniority they have, and of course the more impactful their results are. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Seconding this comment by David Eppstein. -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this change on the grounds that it makes the guideline less clear, not more. To the extent that there is a problem with C1, what we ought to do is codify the hands-on experience developed at AfD: citation profiles are more meaningful in some fields than others, comparisons with coauthors are illuminating, etc. I agree with the comment above about the fundamental logic: If there are a 1000 citations to a person's work, then that is 1000 available sources we can use for an article about them (and their work). Moreover, I also agree with the comment, That a lot of academic biographies merely summarise the subject's CV is a different problem altogether. That's an issue of how to write an article, not whether or not the article should exist in the first place. (WP:RESUME says that Wikipedia is not a place to host your own website, blog, wiki, résumé, or cloud. But when a biography focuses on a person's career, a summary of a CV is a legitimate place to start. And de-CV-izing a bio that reads too much like LinkedIn is typically rather straightforward: the first and most important step is highlighting a lot of text and pressing DEL.)

The existing system, as it operates in practice, is not broken. It runs into edge cases, but it doesn't fill the encyclopedia with junk. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this change. I think David Eppstein, XOR'easter and Xxanthippe (below) have said it all. Qflib (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggestion. The citation landscape has changed much in the last ten years. The reason is first that more papers are being cited because network aids like databases and citation managers like EndNote make it easier to place larger numbers of citations in a paper, and publishers seem happy to accommodate this. Some authors make citations to not very relevant papers to demonstrate their erudition and hope that their backs get scratched in return. The second reason is that much more gaming of citations is taking place, often at an institutional level. The impression I get is that some private biomed research bodies require any paper published by it to cite every paper ever published by it before in order to build up its citation record. The fact that the interpretation of citation data can be complex and subtle does not mean that citation data should be abandoned as being too difficult for Wikipedia editors to cope with. As with any topic in Wikipedia the more background knowledge of a topic that editors have the more useful their edits are likely to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC).

  @Xxanthippe I understand the objection. Would you be in favor of adding a note of caution to 1a, explaining exactly what you just mentioned in your comment, how citation metrics can be easily manipulated and need to be examined in their context, and that their interpretation can be complex? Broc (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There are already plenty of provisos in WP:Prof#C1. More would overburden it with instruction creep. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC).

I'm suprisingly neutral on this change and could even be supportive of it if balancing language were added (such as removing the number of times the word "significant" appears in criteria "b"; or adding that citations of a work (especially those with discussion of its significance) are in themselves independent sources that convey notability. Where C1a has helped a lot of scientists and other researchers in high-/easily-extracted citation counts, the emphasis of it as the first subpoint of the first criterion has encouraged a lot of drive-by "h-index of 11: delete" votes for people who don't know about differences between fields (writing 11 solo-authored books is very different than having a name on 11-team-authored conference proceedings, etc.). It doesn't look like this change is heading towards consensus (in part because of this community's justifibly learned behavior to look at most proposals to change the guideline as attempts to make profs pass AfD for the same reasons as celebrities), but I want to give the encouragement for good-faith tweaks in the future. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

Criterion 6 notes that The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Wondering what exactly defines a "major academic institution". Would, e.g., the historical presidents of the University of Delaware qualify? What about Delaware State University? Goldey-Beacom College? Wesley College? Just wondering. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been the subject of unresolved discussion in the past. My recollection, or perhaps just my personal opinion, is that it's such a vague word that it's useless. In the U.S. context, I think it would be appropriate to interpret it as "accredited." Using that criterion, all four of those institutions would qualify. (In the interests of transparency, I work at one of those institutions and have colleagues at some of the other institutions.) ElKevbo (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

General consensus is that community colleges are not major in this sense, but they are accredited. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The president of Kaplan University, a private/for-profit and regionally accredited school was deleted (see AFD:Betty Vandenbosch). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJMSmith (talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the institution being accredited is just one aspect - a baseline. Awarding at least a bachelor's degree is a second baseline.

Looking beyond those things, I suggest that an institution might be considered "major" on the basis of whether the institution is either

(a) historically important (school is more than 50 years old, lets say, and therefore has many alumni, or is the first school to do a certain important thing like provide coeducation, and so forth)

(b) highly selective (this is assessed by the US government, I believe)

(c) produces funded research at the graduate level, eiher directly or through institutional collaborations, or

(d) something else I haven't thought of yet.

On the other hand, size is not the point at all. After all the largest community colleges in the US have up to 175,000 students (https://www.campusexplorer.com/student-resources/biggest-community-colleges/.) They are extremely important to society, but are not focused on the creation of knowledge (although of course there may be important exceptions out there that I don't know about!). In that sense, they may not be notable enough to automatically confer notability to their presidents. Along those lines, being the president of Kaplan University (which no longer even exists), may not confer notability and I therefore tend to agree with the deletion. Qflib (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should also do a little more fleshing out of what "major" means for schools outside of Anglophone and western European countries. If our expectations for C6 (and C5 for that matter) are that the president has a solid academic background and is likely to have met the more global-impact-calibrated NPROF criteria like C1, C2/3 (international), or C8, I would argue against any relativistic interpretations of "selectivity" and "quality research" in determining what a major school is. The most selective or research-intensive university in Liechtenstein may or may not be comparable in those metrics to schools in, say, Germany or France. And just like we wouldn't consider someone who is highly cited solely through and by work in low-tier, non-selectively-indexed or "bad" journals to meet C1, we shouldn't consider a university whose primary research output is via such journals to be "major" either. On the other hand, C6 might also predict significant impact in more localized areas that may deserve recognition, e.g. through C4 or C7 or even GNG, and these might be the criteria to look for when assessing an institution in regions that don't routinely generate internationally-acknowledged research results. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Qflib (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

After having given this some thought, I wonder if we might consider rewording C6 slightly so that it is in better alignment with C5. Currentlly, 5 and 6 are as follows:

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

What if we changed 6 to read

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution of higher education and research, or a major academic society.

Qflib (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Does it have to be of both higher education and research? For instance, maybe the head of a major national laboratory such as Sandia or Inria should be considered to pass? (It appears we currently do not have articles for James S. Peery and Bruno Sportisse, but maybe we should.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point. Let me try again:

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution of higher education and research, a major research laboratoryinstitution, or a major academic society.

Qflib (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that "research or artistic" should probably be there. Presidents of major conservatories (which are not generally thought of as research institutions) have generally been found notable. I'm fine with this change, but we've rarely not come quickly to a consensus in individual AfDs of presidents/provosts/etc. about what counts as major or not, even if we can't put it perfectly into words here. C6 has generally been a time-saving criterion. I'm trying to remember a case where someone's notability was investigated thoroughly but in the end only passed because she or he passed C6. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to recognize that the United States is the outlier here. In much of the world the word "university" (or its translation) is protected, and only major institutions of learning can use it. Only in the US could the Hamburger University exist under that name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Is Università telematica San Raffaele a major institution of learning? Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bihar? Pharos University in Alexandria? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Da Costa

Hi, not sure this is the right space for this so please help me out. There is an academic turned whistleblower who caused national scandal in Luxembourg bearing his name. Events are related to the deadly European floods of 2021 and the gridlock in the Early Warning Systems. Sources below: [20]https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/19/world/netherlands-germany-flood-defense-warning-system-intl-cmd/index.html[21]https://delano.lu/article/researcher-claims-he-got-fired Foxhiding (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The links are below:

Jeff Da Costa

The Conversation

CNN Foxhiding (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Case of Jeff Da Costa

More detail on the above

more.. Foxhiding (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Foxhiding: Subject certainly fails this notability guideline. I don't think you could make a case for WP:GNG, either, which is what you're really asking for. WP:BIO1E applies, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A PhD student with only one publication in Google Scholar, in a middle position in the author list, does not meet WP:PROF, not even #C7 because that's for people who are quoted broadly as an established expert on a topic through multiple events and stories, not so much for people who get involved in a media storm without yet being an established expert. So if he is to be notable, it could only be through GNG, but it seems likely that WP:BIO1E applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An option that might be better than creating a page about the person might be a page about the scandal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Tryptofish and David Eppstein on this. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

agreed as well with points made above.

Maybe include here [22]https://w.wiki/9jk4 Foxhiding (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition in C6 explanation

Vice chancellors of Central Universities (India) are notable per WP:NPROF C6, however, more often than not, their pages are marked for deletion (in good faith) by unaware editors/reviewers. It is therefore requested that a one line note may please be added to say that Vice chancellors of Central Universities in India are notable.

Examples: Talk:Sanjay Srivastava (academician),

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tankeshwar Kumar where I said -- ...the VC (highest functionary) heading a Central (Federal) public university. Appointed by the President of India after open-applications, search and selection by the Ministry of Education... Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The VC position is largely a political one in much of current-day India and has little to do with academic (or even administrative) excellence. Automatic notability is best not included anywhere. Shyamal (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I will push the other way and suggest the deletion of C6 completely. The wording (and I think consensus) is that Deans and Provosts don't qualify just by virtue of their position, I don't see why anyone else should. They should either separately qualify for WP:NPROF by virtue of their academic career, or qualify by a general notability criteria.

To give one contemporary example to illustrate, I would not support a notability claim for Richard Corcoran based upon his appointment as President of the New College of Florida -- he qualifies as notable outside of academia and independent of this appointment. There have been several other cases where non-academics have been appointed as executive heads of universities or other academic institutions, some less contentious but none should automatically qualify IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional context: in general notability is not inherited, WP:INHERITORG, and the heads of academic institutions are really CEOs so their position notability is more WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think (for @Ldm1954) that if you want to make a change to the notability criteria here it would be more helpful to bring an example of someone who qualifies under WP:PROF that you don't think is notable in general, rather than someone you agree is notable but disagree is notable because of his work in academia. It is unlikely to move the community to say that these criteria are broken, but the people qualifying under it are still notable. He has absolutely been in the news hundreds of times for this role. Whether that qualifies under this rule or another is largely immaterial and not something I want to put my effort to nitpick. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As the criteria is currently written, it is correct that vice chancellors of major Indian universities meet C6. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of C5

The rationale of C5 is I think more than a little outdated. It was based upon the days when only a few full professors had named chairs. However, now in many major university at least 1/3 and often more Profs have them, named chairs have proved to be good fund raising tools. Even Oxford and Cambridge, who used to have only 2-3 "Professors" now have Profs of almost everything. KISS principle, anyone truly notable for C5 should have other means of verification so we don't need it. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. There are some historic and prestigious chairs (Rouse Ball, Lucasian, Regius...) but nowadays it seems like every large department at every large university has at least a couple. This criteria would be redundant for truly notable academics, since they would only have a chair because they already passed one of the other criteria. So seems like this criteria will only introduce 'false positives' when universities make up new chair positions for marketing, or reward academics who are simply good at fund-raising or politicking. WikiNukalito (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The rationale may be outdated (as for C6 in the section above) in the Western world, but it may not be outside of it. It is hard enough for even the most notable academics outside the West to get published and cited in journals that are indexed online. and the other criteria of this guideline, without people here automatically saying that their universities are "minor" simply because of where they are located. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this refers to positions like Vice Chancellor or heads of large departments. If anything, western Universities seem more likely to invent the Bob Roberts Professorship in Whateverology precisely in order to make their academics appear more notable. WikiNukalito (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

What if we add a date cutoff to account for this, like "was a named chair prior to 2015", or whatever year the recognition became discernibly devalued? BD2412 T 01:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There are many kinds of named chairs. Named chairs given to junior faculty to give them a step up, named chairs given to administrators as a slush fund, named chairs given to people who hold some kind of service position, the named chairs that every single full professor in the German system gets, ... and then there are also named chairs reserved for faculty of outstanding scholarly achievement, beyond that of an ordinary full professor. It is only the last kind of chair that C5 is supposed to cover. "Distinguished professor" is not the same thing as a named chair but it also means roughly the same thing, a step beyond ordinary full professor. Similarly, Canada Research Chairs come in two tiers, tier 2 is for more junior faculty, and only tier 1 really corresponds to the intended meaning of C5. I would be opposed to getting rid of C5 altogether; I think that using it for distinguished professors and tier 1 Canada Research Chairs, for instance, is still valuable. But if there's some way of clarifying that only certain named chairs should count, I'd be in favor of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Stepping back slightly, I think most respondents here are approximately in agreement about what academic notability is. However, if you have spent any time on NPP/AfD/AfC and probably a few other places, the definition of academic notability is often tweaked, or even manipulated. I would like to simplify as much as possible.

I am a scientist, and maybe in other areas it is less clear. All the higher level Canadian Research Chairs I know would amply qualify from their other achievements. Similarly for really major chairs, for instance those that come directly from University Trustees.

The same goes for #Clarify C8 below on being an editor. If there are special cases where being an editor is really highly prestigious and is done at the expense of other academic achievements, please correct me. My experience is that it is really expected as part of service, along with reviewing papers, proposals, appointments etc. Peer recognition via citations, awards, reviews and sometimes news and a few other is what matters -- peers are "secondary sources".

Less is more. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There are several areas of academic biography that I sometimes work in where markers of success such as citation counts are totally worthless, either because everybody lists everybody else as authors and they all get thousands of citations (high energy physics) or because citations are handed out like very valuable keepsakes and consequentially nobody gets any (pure mathematics). For those areas, it is important to be able to point to indicators that within the field certain people are seen as standing out above the others. Buggy as they are, C5 and C8 both provide that sort of indicator. C3 is maybe more consistent, within a specific field, but it doesn't have the same consistency from one field to another. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think (hope) that everyone here knows that citation numbers are field dependent. If unsure, compare to others in the field as has been mentioned various times, with various recipes provided. To me high, discipline adjusted citations are a strong peer vote, and I will take that every day over university chairs which are often retention/hiring enticements. Similarly senior awards matter. Best is both peer citations and awards, although I know of several where the publications were weak but the awards were convincing, e.g. from industry, and another where the citations were suspicious; careful analysis is needed.

Being an editor, WP:MILL, not notable. I have never seen that claimed as a significant tenure achievement, it is expected service. My personal experience is that almost everyone will review/act as a editor for Nature or Science, but in strong, second level journals it is very hard to get academics to be good citizens. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If they were merely "field dependent" we could adjust for field and be done. No, there are fields where they are totally useless. Do you want to kill off other notability criteria, because we have C1, and then lose most of our coverage of people in those fields, because C1 does not work for them?

Also, being an editor, meaning on the editorial board, is so run-of-the-mill that I prefer not to mention it at all. It is only being editor-in-chief of a major journal that counts for C8. And no, it is not true that "almost everyone will review/act as a editor for Nature or Science". Maybe almost everyone in experimental physical science will act as a referee for those two journals, but referee is even less exceptional than editor, and even some STEM fields like mathematics and computer science are very poorly covered by those two journals to the point where I think very few mathematicians and computer scientists have done any form of editorial work for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no difference in editorial roles. I also have experience with people declining to be editors, so do not agree with you there. As Ghandi said,

"honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."

Let's switch things slightly so we can perhaps come to an agreement of sorts. Do you agree with my argument that academic notability should be based upon peer review? If so we can start to discuss more definitively, including perhaps votes. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You see no difference between editor-in-chief, member of editorial board, and referee? Ok.

I do think that using signs of recognition by other people in the same discipline is better than using hype for one's research (the usual way WP:GNG might be accomplished for academics) and better than trying to determine for ourselves based on its content alone whether some piece of research is significant. I would not call this "peer review" because as Wikipedia editors we do not actually seeing the things that usually count as peer review: referee reports on papers, reviews of grant proposals, letters of recommendation for tenure and hiring, etc.

One of those signs of recognition is being given an advanced title (C5). These things typically happen only after peer review, letters of recommendation, etc. We don't see the peer review but we see the result. Another sign is being chosen to head a major journal (C8). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's no difference between referee and editor-in-chief, my CV just got a heck of a lot more impressive. XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I at least meant editor-in-chief and editor. Of course not referee. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, I've tried to do quantitative analysis of HEP citations based on the Scopus metrics of a subject's coauthors. It is impossible to determine what is "well above the average" number of citations when hundreds of people of wildly varying writing/experimental involvement and seniority are cited in every new consortium update on form factor measurements or whatever, each of which gets thousands of citations. There are assistant professors with Scopus h-indexes close to 100 for whom I could not find a single paper with fewer than 25 coauthors, much less anything secondary highlighting specifically their contributions. C5 can at least serve as a proxy for how a subject's scholarship has been received within their subfield, as evaluated by their university; the nuance and subjectivity then passes to how prestigious the school is (overall or in that subfield) and how prestigious a named chair or distinguished professorship is at that school. If we're to adjust C5, I think it should be to clarify what shouldn't count and to discourage knee-jerk "passes C5" assessments when it's not clear what the status of the position and/or the university is. JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with the idea of clarifying what C5 (and perhaps C8) are not, small steps (?). Related, maybe I should have used "peer recognition" as we generally do not see reviews as @David Eppstein says, and words matter. I understand @JoelleJay's point about HEP, which is why I '''always''' look for awards and similar '''plus''' the citations. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the profusion of chairs would make a presumption of notability for professors of no note who only have mention of their named chair on their employer's website. We can't write a biographical article on something like that. The notable named chairs might provide notability for holders per ANYBIO but the usage of C5 is probably over. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy, it's the GNG-fanatics again trying to rework everything into a clone of GNG even when it makes no sense. "We can't" = "I don't want to because GNG tells me not to", very different from "it is actually impossible". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We could swap the order around and say something like, "The person has held a Distinguished Professor appointment, a named chair that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where...". XOR'easter (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the way this wording suggests that only this kind of named chair should count. I think it more accurately reflects our actual practice in AfDs. For instance, named chairs like Cambridge's Dorwart Professorships aren't generally taken as satisfying C5. These are visiting assistant professorships, basically postdocs with a fancy title, not permanent or higher-rank positions. The criterion-specific notes, 5(b), make clear that this doesn't count, but your wording matches this better than the status quo. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on this. Qflib (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPROF C5 is the most problematic of the NPROF criteria. General comment that I've seen a few cases going by recently where a named chair was tied to a dean-ship. It might be good to add language to indicate that such named chairs are not a pass of WP:NPROF C5. On another note, perhaps it would be good to explicitly say that WP:NPROF C5 is a proxy for WP:NPROF C1, and that there should be at least some plausible case for the kind of impact we're looking for in C1. (I think this is generally along the lines of what XOR'easter is suggesting just above.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Re "is a proxy of C1": plenty of distinguished professors are in non-journal fields such as the humanities where there is little hope of passing C1 (or C3). C1 works well only for journal fields. That's another reason why we need to keep C5; it helps normalize our standards across different fields of academia. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, surely a notable academic in these areas would have awards (C1d/e and C2) and/or C3 & C4 and C7. As has been said here (not just by you), citations are not everything. If there is no peer recognition, just some Dean's award of a named chair then I would not be convinced, no verifiable evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

David Eppstein, when I refer to C1, I mean the broad sense of having had a substantial impact on an academic field, and not the narrow sense of having a high citation count. As Ldm1954 suggests, there is usually some other signal of this. Perhaps it would be good to think about C5 as a little more like C2, where we disregard a lot of early-career and otherwise more routine prizes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion began with the comment that 1/3 of all profs at major universities have named chairs to which I would reply [citation needed]. Across most of the US a named chair requires an endowment in perpetuity for the position, which can be $1-8 million dollars, which is a huge stretch for all but the most significant positions. Yes, you can look at the Harvard or Stanford faculty lists and say, "See! 1/3 of their full-professor faculty have named chairs!" but I don't think that you'll find anything like this across the "major university" landscape (in the US R1, R2, and significant liberal arts colleges), where most departments are struggling to get their first endowed chair. And if this criterion makes 1/3 of the faculty at Harvard notable, are you really willing to make the argument that 1/3 of the Harvard faculty are not significantly more notable than the average professor?

Can we make a meta-rule for this guideline, that "changes to the guidelines without examples of 'professors who shouldn't be notable but pass a current criteria' will be rejected without discussion"? I'd really like to know one deletion argument for an existing article on a professor who passes this case. Then I could consider changing my views. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the 1/3 number, and I am sure that almost all Harvard professors are indeed notable. But it does not take much searching to find other places with a large number of endowed chairs e.g. this was the first result on Google for 'university of Arizona named chairs', and this is just one school/college. Now maybe all of these people are notable, but the proliferation of chairs does kind of devalue them and make them a weak indicator of notability. WikiNukalito (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

One data point is an anecdote, but: in my R1 department of some 50 regular-rank faculty members, we currently have zero of them with endowed chairs. (We have roughly two chairs empty from recent retirements that we can hire people into, but they are unavailable to already-hired professors; we are working to fill those empty chairs, but that is a slow and difficult process.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Different universities, different fund raising. Taking Northwestern University Computer Science here as a comparison, the university is R1 and aggressive about fundraising. I counted 18 full professors (exclude by courtesy and adjunct) or which 6 have endowed chairs. (A fortuitous match to my 1/3.) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So, to clarify, instead of "1/3 of the faculty", as MSC interpreted your remark earlier, you really mean "1/3 of the full professors in certain STEM disciplines"? I imagine that at least 1/3 of the full professors in CS at Northwestern are notable by other standards as well. Having that many notable by C5 is non-problematic, and makes it easier to identify the notable ones both for article creators and in deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I meant full profs, and not adjuncts/courtesy since the latter are padding. Northwestern has some junior chairs but less as it is harder to sell those to donors. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Shifting back

I would like to return to XOR'easter's proposal and vote Support for it as a good compromise that seems (?) to satisfy most participants of this debate. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. XOR'easter's proposal seems reasonable. - Enos733 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if it makes things clearer. It seems to be the way C5 is interpreted at AfD anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change. I don't think it affects how people who often participate in academic AfDs will interpret the guideline, but it will help people who are trying to read the guideline for the first time and understanding what it means. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I understand this to be the change to: "The person has held a Distinguished Professor appointment, a named chair that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where...". Assuming I understand that correctly, I support that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly recommend and request that a formal RfC be launched and subsequently advertised in relevant places to discuss a the proposed substantive change to this notability guideline. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with that if we were discussing the deletion of C5. But (assuming I understand correctly) what we are discussing here is the wording change that I just quoted in my support comment. I have trouble seeing that as a substantive change. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change and fine with doing it without a formal RFC. I think it is a clarifying minor wording change without any intended change to the substance of the guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change on those grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Cheers, Qflib (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

C1,4,7 vs C2,3,5,6,8

I just went and re-read the whole C1-8 for the first time in a while and realized something that is quite confusing about the whole list. There are sort of two different types of criterion mixed together; three of which apply to 90% of academic notability cases, and five of which are specialized shortcuts. Compare the current list with some sort of reorganization like this:

General Criteria for Notability of Academics (passing any one is enough):

• The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (=1)
• The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. (=4)
• The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (=7)

Specific Positions, Awards, and Roles

Academics who have held any of the following positions or received such awards and recognition in their own field have sufficiently shown that their work has had significant impact in either their discipline, higher education, or outside academia. Thus passing any of these categories also satisfies notability:

• The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (=2)
• The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association...(etc.) (=3)
• The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment...(etc.) (=5)
• The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post...(etc.) (=6)
• The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. (=8)

---

It seems that somehow distinguishing the more general from the more specific cases might be helpful especially for newcomers to understand that there is a general way that academics are judged and then there are specific ways that save time at AfD. Drawback of course would be renumbering the criteria many of us know so well (call them A1–3, B1–B5?). The category labels and transition words are just things I came up with really fast, they're not important to the proposal, just the notion that these are two different things. Thoughts? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that although this might have made sense to do at the dawn of time, this change would create more confusion than it would cure if carried out at this point. Just my opinion. Qflib (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarify C8

Point b mentions that fringe and pseudo-science journals should not be included, but there are by some measure over 45000 academic journals, most of which have editors, most of whom are not notable. I think there should be some more clarity on what counts as a major well-established journal. Perhaps some combination of age, impact factor or association with important works, authors or events (though the last is a little circular). WikiNukalito (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Impact factor is only a used criteria for quality/notability/etc. in the sciences. What do you propose for the rest of academia? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not necessarily crazy about Impact factor which is why I suggested some other ideas, though impact factor is a widely reported metric, even for many journals outside of the sciences. Another idea would be that notable editors edit notable journals? If a journal is notable enough to already have a page e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophy_journals, then no further evidence is required, otherwise there must be some evidence (including but not limited to Impact factor) to support the claim that the journal in question is a 'major well-established' one. WikiNukalito (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to using impact factor for anything at all. But whether a journal is notable is also a matter or some controversy; see WT:NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I agree, impact factor is flawed but at present the word major is doing a lot of work (also true for the discussion about chairs above in C5). I am an academic, not a very notable one, but by replying to some of the half dozen emails I get a week I could soon be the editor of a journal Here's an example of a person who might not be a notable academic, but for editorial work at a MDPI journal, a questionable publisher. Perhaps simply a link between C8 and the notability guidelines for journals would be beneficial? WikiNukalito (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

In all, C8's not my favorite part of the guideline, and it's not used very much, but I'm trying to search my brain for a case where it has been invoked successfully to keep a biography that would otherwise have likely been deleted. I can't remember one. Do we have any such cases? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I linked this one in the post above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Knuth WikiNukalito (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't a keep, it was a no-consensus close. And as I wrote in the AfD, the case for the journal he edits counting as major is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly the point? I happen to have reviewed for that journal and I don't think it's problematic but it isn't 'major and well established', it's mid-tier I suppose, though notable according to Notability_(academic_journals). So that's my question really, 'major and well established' is not the same as 'notable', so how should that be determined? You guys are much more experienced here, so I hesitate to offer any other suggestions, and maybe it doesn't arise much in practice, but surely it wouldn't hurt to have some guidance on what 'major and well established' means? WikiNukalito (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks WikiNukalito -- sorry I didn't see it. Whether delete or no consensus, it is an example of a case where discussing the criterion seems like a reasonable response. FWIW, my notion of "major" is substantially below "Science" or "Nature" but above the hundreds of journals that random predatory publishers create each year. Presumably there has to be prestige associated with editing the journal and numerous people who would be thrilled to be asked. In musicology (my field), out of the perhaps 150-300 serious, regularly publishing journals, I'd consider about 30 to be at the level where I'd make a C8 case (all of the editors are people I could make a C1 case for as well, but it just takes more time). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In terms of a page that is marginal for notability and tests the limits of C8 (WP:TOOSOON) is Draft:Benjamin Schlein, which is being debated by myself, Jähmefyysikko and TensorProduct with also some input from David Eppstein. He was one of four editors-in-chief for 2 years, but is not now. There is no question in anyone's mind (I think) that he is a strong mathematician. Also, I don't think that there is much doubt that the draft that was created directly in main space needed significant cleaning, which is slowly taking place.

However, with no great publication record, only relatively junior awards, the question is whether 2 years as one of the editors in chief meets C8 and WP:SUSTAINED. I am posting here to push forward the discussion of C8 which I personally am not a fan of. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion C8 should be limited to sole EiCs of prestigious journals, not every run-of-the-mill indexed journal. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarify/quantify C1 with regards to Citation Metrics

Despite there being an entire Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics section, the section itself doesn't actually clearly spell out a metric by which to qualify. This makes it hard for article authors to actually know, is this an academic that qualifies or not? Personally I considered a person with over 200 citations to be pretty highly cited, but recently learned, that is not so. So, I'm asking if someone could actually help quantify that section, so that article authors writing new articles actually have a measure to work against. Raladic (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The answer is that it is not possible to provide a single number that works because the citation patterns in different fields are too different to directly compare from one field to another. For someone who works in taxonomy, philosophy, or pure mathematics, a publication with 100+ citations may be highly cited and count as evidence towards C1; for someone who works in high-energy physics or astronomy, a publication with 10000+ citations (but 1000 coauthors) may not be evidence of much. Even if one tries to factor out numbers of coauthors, machine learning, neuroscience, medical image processing, and popular psychology are all very heavily cited compared to the others I listed earlier. And when individual researchers cross discipline boundaries, their work in one area may be more heavily cited than their work in another for reasons unrelated to its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Could hints for a by-field area be added that at least give some kind of closer idea than the current abstract?

The examples you just provided here already appear useful to be included in the section. Raladic (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on your original post: it would be very rare for a person with 200 total citations to be considered notable under C1. A decent number of highly cited papers is needed. As David Eppstein said, a single publication with 100 cites in (for instance) mathematics would qualify towards notability. However, it would need to be more than one, in math I suspect that 15 with more than 100 cites each would meet C1.

In most areas of physics, chemistry and materials science, something like 500-1000 cites of a single paper makes it notable. An h-factor of about 45 is about at the border, that is 45 papers each of which has been cited more than 45 times. (I would prefer a slightly higher number of > 50).

But this is very subjective, and with so much field variability I doubt that anyone will want to provide hard numbers.

N.B., in most cases when an academic is truly notable they have received national and/international awards. For me those matter as they indicate that the peers consider them notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

When creating new articles I try to look for passes of multiple WP:PROF criteria, to make such matters more clear. But when other articles are taken to AfD, I often do not have that luxury. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Even within fields there is a lot of variation across subfields that makes it difficult to compare (and controversial). Author-level metrics lists a bunch of ways people have tried to compare citation counts and impact for an author, but I think the proliferation of metrics demonstrates that this is a difficult task. It would be nice if we could set a standard like the "field-weighted citation impact," but even this comes with its criticisms, and I am skeptical it would be that useful. Having a bright line rule for citation counts could lead to poor outcomes (as in the examples David Eppstein laid out). Rather, I think extraordinarily high citation counts carefully evaluated in the context of the academic being discussed is probably the best way to go. Malinaccier (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, all this helps as further explanations. Though it then almost sounds that likely such an academic will most likely also have to have some of the other criteria as an inevitable side effect beyond just high citation count if it’s that hard to quantify where the line is, even on a per field basis.

Or satisfy GNG itself I guess.

Is that an accurate interpretation? Raladic (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say so in a very vague and general sense, but I think it's more accurate to say that there isn't really a line, so much as a general "the higher the citation count relative to other academics in the field, the more likely C1 is a winning argument at AfD". -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It is more difficult to assess citations now because of the large increase in citation gaming with the advent of research paper mills and similar. The best preparation is knowledge of the fields concerned and experience at academic AfDs. Anything out of the ordinary should be treated with suspicion. See what you think about the over 100+ authors from over 50 different instutions in this paper [23]. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC).

I compare the subject's Scopus citation metrics to those of their professor-level coauthors. If they're below the median then it's unlikely they meet C1 via citations. This only works in fields where paper coauthorship is common and where it actually means something -- disciplines where journal publications are rare, where monographs are the norm, or where authorship is afforded to every single person who breathes on a particle detector or recruits a clinical subject aren't going to yield usable statistics. JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My practice in assessing academic AfDs is to look for single-author or low-authors papers in reputable journals that are well cited. In this way one can tell of an author is capapble of working independently of is just piggybacking on the work of others. Some editors think that author order is important (although not for single author papers!) but I see no evidence for this, as practices vary so widely. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC).

Yeah, that's another route I take when looking at researchers in fields with few coauthors. However you have to be careful since in some disciplines the only time you see single- or two-author works is for reviews/surveys, which shouldn't count nearly as much as research articles. And I do think it's important to consider author order in cases where that's meaningful (this should be clearest when authorship isn't alphabetized or is only alphabetized after the first few names); first-author is much more meaningful than second etc., and when last author = senior author that's probably an even better indicator of importance. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Practices definitely vary widely. In science, collaboration is everything and single-paper authors are rare in my experience. And some single-author review papers (invited ones) are a recognition that someone has achieved preeminence, or demonstrated early but very important achievements in a particular field; others, maybe less so. But the social sciences are completely different - single-author books are more important than articles in many of the social science fields. Qflib (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that there is too much variation (between fields, between countries, over time, etc.) to even come up with a ballpark figure. We also have to be careful to avoid slipping into thinking we're the tenure board: notability is an assessment of the ease of writing an encyclopaedia article, not the achievements of the subject. The author of one or more highly-cited works is someone we can probably write an article on, because within those citations there is probably enough significant coverage of the work. Whether the work is good or really attributable to the subject or deserves the attention is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Whether the work is good or really attributable to the subject or deserves the attention is irrelevant.

  Well, the guideline does stipulate that for a contribution to count towards C1 it needs to be very impactful and the specific involvement of the subject needs to be widely recognized.

  In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Selected publication section in professor articles

Articles about professors often include a list of selected publications. In the guide I wrote on how to write such articles I recommend the section. One list that I included in an article is currently under discussion as inapproriate unverified material here. Since this has the potential to affect many articles, I would like to consider the issue here instead. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

A short list of a scholar's most important works is appropriate if the individual is notable for research and publishing their findings. Some editors would limit a publication list to books and six journal articles but I would go as high as ten or twelve journal articles if the publications are significant in the field or if the article represents significant scholarship or major discoveries. In other words, we can set a guideline but need to consider the subject and what is appropriate; I would not limit Albert Einstein to a publication list of six articles.

A Select Publications list does not require a citation for each item in the list, especially when the items are linked to a digital copy or have an ISBN. This practice is well-accepted and used in countless FA and FL class articles. MOS:LISTSOFWORKS notes that a publication list acts as [its own] citation, even though it is not technically a citation. Thus, it would seem out of line to remove a Select Publications list because it is unsourced.

Some editors believe a list of Select Publications is arbitrary and question how its contents are determined. To me, it is just like any other content that is included in an article. An editor reviews available information and decides what would be the most valuable to understanding the subject, while also fitting within the concept of being encyclopedic. One way to determine the importance of a published article is to see how many times it has been cited by other scholars. However, this can not be the only determining factor because it fails to consider important work in narrow fields or older works that lack digitized coverage. Rublamb (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Along with citation counts, other criteria I sometimes use to determine inclusion of selected publications are whether the publication has made a splash in popular media, or whether it has been given some significant award. But I agree with being flexible on the number while keeping the number small. It also depends on how senior the scholar is; for someone near or past the end of their career one would expect more publications to be significant than for a younger researcher. One way to make clear why some publications are selected is to include footnotes to them in the article text, distinct from the reference footnote numbering; see for instance the lettered (not numbered) footnotes in Ronald Graham (for whom six selected articles would be too few). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I'm going to have a look at that article but let me say right now that anything that can verify that there is a valid reason for selecting something is a welcome addition. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot of AfC drafts where I would agree with the comment that the Selected works section is "little more than resume building", but for an emeritus professor or someone who has published monographs I think it would be really quite strange not to have this section. -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Trimming lists of publication down to size is definitely something I've done more than once when a bio makes it to AfD. It's the opposite of "resume building": a resume is all-inclusive, whereas a short list of publications here is curated. XOR'easter (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

XOR'easter, in the example at hand there was no indication in the article or anywhere else that "curation" had taken place. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, thanks for bringing this to wider discussion. I have always been of the opinion, not for terribly well-considered reasons, that including e.g. the three highest cited papers from GS is usually due. With reasons, that might be augmented to 4 or 5 papers; in rare cases more. If I'm putting in a selected papers section, then I usually include an html comment with the selection criteria I used. So the list in Laurence D. Marks seems overly long to me -- the selection criteria are unclear, and I'm not sure what a reader should take away from it. (But in a situation where the main notability comes from published papers, it does seem appropriate to include a short list of them.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Russ Woodroofe, thank you. I am NOT against including a select number of publications: it seems clear to me, even in my own career, that some articles are simply more important than others--by which I mean cited, acknowledged, etc. Even if I may not agree with someone's selection criteria, at least we should be able to see what criteria, if any, were used. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In the LDM article it seemed odd to me that the 1983 article introducing the Marks decahedron (not actually a decahedron) was omitted. Selected publications should not merely be "highest cited papers from GS" (although that is often a good start); we should take into account other factors like prizes, whether the paper started or finished a Wikipedia-notable topic, whether it's the author's main work on some subtopic or duplicative of other selections, spread of dates over the author's career, and (in fields where this matters) position in author list. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I don't know who selected the original list for LDM. I just remember reviewing and trimming the list, leaving major publications and articles where he was the main contributor. You are right about including his early work. I would also suggest his 2024 article on static electricity that was mentioned in The Guardian. Now LDM has retired, it would be great for someone to review this list, looking for the articles that best summarize his career. That may require looking at his CV as all of his early work may not show up in Google Scholar.

Now that many months have passed, I would back your original idea of cutting the list, especially so that it can really showcase his career. However, list curation is very different from completely removing a Select Publications list, which is what happened here. This current list is not horrible; it just could be better. But as with anything in Wikipedia, it is a process that takes time. Rublamb (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Curating such lists takes a certain level of subject-matter expertise, which I for one do not have for the research area of LDM. It would be good if an editor who knows this subject well could take charge of any such trim. I do not know offhand who might be likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if flagging for an expert would help? Rublamb (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Just because you don't "see" the selection criteria, doesn't mean one does not exist. The criteria could be articles in publications with a Wikipedia article; given the tough road to get a journal listed in Wikipedia, that can be a way to determine notability. It might be based on citation counts, a connection to the text, or a combination of all three. These are all reasonable approaches, but I would be challenged to "see" them. I rely on the principle of Good Faith, especially when looking at contributions by experienced editors.

In a perfect world, all academic articles would be B class or above, with extensive details of scholarly work that connects to the publication list. However, Wikipedia is a process, and everything is not added simultaneously. Removing a Selected Publications list is not particularly helpful when that content could contribute to expanding the article. The current list may be flawed, but with a quick scan, I can see that LDM was published in Nature and Science at a time when that meant a scholar's work was significant had become mainstream. Rublamb (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rublamb, I'm not looking for a perfect world--I'm just looking for a citation, a footnote, just like we do with all things that we put in articles. If there's no note, no explanation in an edit summary, then it looks like "selected" is OR/editorial attitude. And what you are explaining here is indeed a kind of editorial overreach: you are outlining possible criteria which may or may not have been used but were certainly not explicated. And the road to get a journal listed is really not that tough: we have hundreds if not thousands of articles on journals; I think I wrote a few myself. "Article published in journal with Wikipedia article" is not a valid criterion: there are tons and tons of articles on journals and those journals publish tons and tons of articles, some of them with tons and tons of co-authors. As for good faith, sure, but is this not an article with a COI past? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's no different from any other editorial decision we might make. We include World Cup and Olympic appearances of footballers but don't detail their performance in minor games; do we need a footnote every time to a reference that specifically states that for this person these are their most important performances? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, You have said: Anyway, without proper citations that prove noteworthiness, it's an arbitrary selection., and you are removing such lists when you see them. However WP:NNC says that notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. "Selected" just means a short list. I use the list to illustrate a scientist's development over time. Its an editor's choice of what to include, not original research. The list is self-referencing. A short bibliography of the subjects work is common in scientific encyclopedias such as the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Wikipedia is many types of encyclopedia rolled into one, and over here in the academic and technical section we can follow the style of those encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What you're saying is you can insert material whose importance is unverified just because you think it's worth including. I didn't say "notability", by the way. By the same token, you could insert a list of every single YouTube video some influencer has ever made, or a bibliography of every single article some journalist ever wrote--or every single opinion article some columnist ever wrote. If "editor's choice", without any kind of sourcing on which to base that, is going to be the new guideline, we might as well turn into Wikia. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I am confused. I think you are talking about "verifiability doesn't mean inclusion", rather than importance, and we don't have problems keeping that stuff out. We have articles about people who are notable. Does every event in the life of a such a person have to be important to the wider world, with a source that shows not just that it happened but that it was an important happening, before it can be in a biography? Wikipedia has never required that. If a person moved to a new university all we need is a source that shows that it happened, not a source that shows that it was important. If a person does a piece of research all we need is a source that shows that it happened, not another source that declares it important. I include a list of publications to show the development over time of a researcher, what they were working on and what that led to. It is a list of events in a person's life as they progress in their field, facts supportable by self citation. And helped by the fact that titles of technical papers tend toward the very descriptive. If there is a bit more information available it can be done as prose with the same sources. But biography. particularly in science, needs to present what people did and how they came to do it, not just a list of awards and positions.

Drmies, I understand your frustration. Wikipedia is continually inundated by promotional editors, in the academic area as well as everywhere else. Professors want their latest research highlighted, or insist that their entire publication list be included, or want an article about their latest pet theory which no one in their field takes seriously. University PR people want shiny articles about their institution and professors. But in trying to fend this off we need to allow experienced editors use such factual material as is available, even if others try to misuse it. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"If a person does a piece of research all we need is a source that shows that it happened"--what you are saying is that every single thing that a notable person does should be included in their article, no? I disagree. Drmies (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Exactly. The role of the editor is to review and select what information to include, whether it is factual details or a list of publications. Rublamb (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, have you considered the constraints I mentioned below in selecting which papers to list? I don't think anyone here is arguing we include every piece of research or even that we choose the list items based on what we think ought to be most important. What experienced editors are doing is adding the most impactful publications according to external sources -- the citations or reviews themselves surely demonstrate why a particular piece is DUE in the page -- and (hopefully) trimming them down to just those works that reflect serious research contributions from the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I did, but given the idiosyncrasies of the various fields (noted by others in response), how are these things workable at all? "What we think ought to be the most important"--I know what my reasoning is for dropping a paper in someone's list of publications: a citation, or a comment, in another paper/book/etc., in a footnote... Drmies (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally if the academic is actually notable, there will be some evidence of that in the form of discussion of their work by other academics. Most fields use citations as a metric to at least some degree, so identifying the papers that have the most citations is very workable. My recommendation was to filter that list further by generally ignoring reviews/surveys and to focus on papers where the subject is the first or senior author if their field uses ordinal authorship. I don't see this approach as any different from the way we (should) decide which of the subject's research topics to discuss in prose -- we can really only be sure something is BALASP if it's had attention elsewhere, and citations are the easiest metric to check. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For that reason I wouldn't recommend just copying a professor's own "selected publications" list from their home page (my own included). There is some likelihood that they chose some or all of these publications for reasons at cross-purposes to ours (to highlight publications that they think should stand out rather than the ones that already do; to focus on only their current interests rather than the old stuff they're notable for but no longer interested in; to present an appearance of being active in some now-hot topic; to show off high citation counts for papers that they had a minor role in; etc etc.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Going purely by journal prestige, I'd include papers published in Nature, Science, and Physical Review Letters. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That was what I originally went with but it is good to have a physicist confirm my selection criteria. Maybe you can help identify any missing or better articles? Rublamb (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what others said, when possible I would limit these works to those publications where the subject is a major author. In many fields authorship is ordinal (or ordinal at the start and end and alphabetical in the middle), and often senior/corresponding authors are listed last. When this is the case I would select the highest-cited research works that were by the subject as either first or senior author. I specify "research" because frequently someone's highest-cited papers are just reviews, which don't really demonstrate the impact of the author's scholarship (unless they basically defined their subfield). JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. On Talk:Laurence D. Marks, Ldm1954 mentioned the selected publications on the article about me, David Eppstein#Selected publications. I didn't select them (because writing that article is not for me to do) and wouldn't have made exactly that selection, for one thing because the mesh generation paper listed is a survey rather than the research paper that I would have put in its place, "Provably good mesh generation". Different citation numbers mean different things for different kinds of papers. Another situation where this sort of thing comes up frequently is with statisticians, who often work as the statistical consultant to papers in other fields (getting big citation counts with a middle-position authorship) but whose more significant contributions to fundamental statistics are often less heavily cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but other fields don't follow these conventions (or didn't historically), so it would be important to avoid applying this kind of rule without exception. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll confess that I often have a gut reaction akin to it simply being resumé-building, but I also recognize that it's really not as simple as that. As other editors already pointed out above, one consideration is the career stage of the page subject. I'll expand on that by pointing out a rather easy test for whether or not a publication list should be trimmed. Look at the current version of the page as a whole. (I should quickly add that this does not apply for a very newly created page, that may be significantly expanded in the near future.) If the person the page is about is someone with a particularly substantial life story, so that the page has a lot of paragraph text about them, a publications list may make up a fairly small part of the page as a whole. When that is the case, the list has a good chance of being justified. On the other hand, for an early-career academic, for whom there can only be a start-level page, it tends to look very WP:NOTRESUME when the publication list fills up about half of the entire page. When that happens, there's probably a good reason to remove at least some of the list.

Another issue that I've come across, that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that I sometimes see pages about persons in the fields where I'm particularly familiar with the literature, where there is good reason to list some selected publications. But what I actually see in the list are a bunch of the less important publications by that person, related by the fact that they are all coauthored by a (not notable) junior author. I get a strong feeling that there must have been some WP:COI editing of the page in the past. The solution, of course, is not to remove the list, but to rewrite it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• My thought is that the selected publication list should only contain blue-linked publications. This is generally similar to other lists in articles. Everything else should be in the prose. --Enos733 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a super-extreme position that would prevent listing almost all research articles, even those winning major prizes, and many entire books. I don't think it's a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is a great selection criterion, espeically for new academics who might pad their CV with non-notable online journals, but it cannot be the only deciding factor. Many defunct publications and state or federal series are not included in Wikipedia but were, nevertheless, important in their day. I just finished an article on the leading surgeon for pulmonary tuberculosis in the early 20th century—all of those TB journals and national organizations have been inactive for a long time and are not in Wikipedia. However, it was a major branch of medicine and a public health crisis; Time magazine wrote about this African American surgeon's innovations in 1940. I would not exclude his articles in Bulletin of the National Tuberculosis Assocation or the Pennsylvania Medical Journal just because those publication are not in Wikipedia and don't seem to be digitized yet. Rublamb (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Am I misreading Enos's comment? It seems to require that the individual research article have a blue link, not merely that it be published in a bluelinked journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I believe "blue-linked publications" refers to journals, not to individual articles or books. Rublamb (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  That would make even less sense, since basically 100% of notable contemporary scientists will have many many papers in blue-linked journals, and a huge proportion will have only published in notable journals. That would be effectively the same as having no selection criteria at all. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  It depends on the situation. Of course, there is a difference between a journal meeting Wikipdia's notability (verified by having an article) and a journal being considered notable in a given academic field. And not all articles in notable publications represent significant advances in a given field or major research by a given scholar. Nevertheless, I still think this can be a useful way to start a review/reduction of an existing publication list, depending on the situation. I have edited articles for newer academics where none of the journals in their publication list were blue-linked. On closer examination, the cited publications lacked peer review or were predatory, meaning the lack of a blue-link was a pretty good indicator of worthiness for inclusion. Regardless, I don't believe this should be a "rule", just a useful tool. Rublamb (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a fine rule of thumb, but our inclusion criteria for journals is so random at the moment that I oppose its use as a hard indicator. Suriname0 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree with avoiding the inclusion of anything in a predatory journal. That is not going to help much as a filter for most notable scholars, though. I find User:Headbomb/unreliable to be helpful in catching links to predatory journals, so if the listed articles have dois or other links they should show up as unreliable using this script. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was referring to the actual publication, not a blue-linked journal. I know that some academics may not have a separate publication list in my formulation, especially if they only publish journal articles, but it does provide a bright line (and a standard that is followed in many other areas including WP:NLIST, and generally followed in filmographies). I do also think that editors can (and should) talk about the academic's work in the body of the article (this is why we consider citations as a reason to keep - because other academics are talking about the subject and the subject's theories. - Enos733 (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  All of the filmographies I sampled to verify your claim (e.g. Gary Cooper filmography, Lillian Gish filmography, several others) included blacklinked or redlinked entries. The same is true for all the discographies I sampled, and all the bibliographies of fiction authors I sampled. If this is a rule it is one very much not followed. For open-ended lists of people, yes, this is a typical rule, but that is not what we have here.

  In cases of academics in book fields, the (authored) books and their reviews are the main claim to notability of the subjects; omitting them (in cases where they do not have standalone articles already) could leave the article without a claim of notability, in an A7 deletion worthy state. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Moreover, WP:MERGE suggests that it could be better in many circumstances to e.g. cover notable books from a notable author in the article on the author. So in many circumstances, the books not only may not be blue-linked, but should not be blue-linked (even though they are notable). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Enos733: Looks like I misinterpreted your suggestion. Only citing blue-linked books in a selected publication list is not a reasonable standard, for many reasons. Firstly, you assume that a book is more important than cutting-edge research in a journal and that a book has a wider reach. Secondly, scholarly monographs are less likely to have a Wikipedia article than best-selling "trashy" novel; being blue-linked does not mean the novel is more important academically. Thirdly, being blue-linked is not a Wikipedia standard for lists. WP:NLIST specifically says that all items in a list do not need to be notable (i.e. have an article in Wikipedia). The function of a publication list in a biographical article is to showcase the person's career and their important/influential work; the list's importance is relative to the subject of the article and their field of expertise, not being blue-linked. Rublamb (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree a black and white (blue and white) standard may not always lead to optimum results, but it does provide a certain degree of clarity for editors. At the end of the day, material on this project must first be verifiable, and second, should be written about. "Selected," to a large degree, implies subjectivity and an editor's judgement that the publication is important. So, we must make choices - first by deciding to limit the publication record to a handful of publications, and second which publications are "most" important and reflective of the subject's career. If we don't list all publications, we are making editorial choices, and if we want to give editors discretion, we are going to have lots of variety across subjects (as the publications I think are important may not either be an exemplar of the scholar's work or important to other editor [ and to avoid conflict, it is easier to add than subtract]).

  However, our community does have guidance across all subjects - a focus on the material that are discussed by other authors. Yes, it could be a blue-linked work (there are some journal articles that should meet our guidance for a stand-alone article), But even if we don't use blue links as a metric, the selected publication list should be based on how impactful those publications are on their respective field (or society at-large), and impact should be evaluated through the lens of whether those publications (and the theories contained within those publications) are discussed by others - and ideally, those impacts are discussed in the prose.

  Just my 2 cents. - Enos733 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  But there is a huge difference between a publication receiving sufficient coverage to be DUE and receiving sufficient coverage to be notable. The vast majority of even well-cited papers are not going to receive sustained GNG SIGCOV: citations will be at best a few sentences, and even in-depth reviews/editorial summaries will only occur in the short period around the paper's publication (and anyway are considered routine for some disciplines, like math). I agree that the selected works should reflect external appraisals of impact, but limiting them to blue-linked works would basically eliminate these lists for everyone in STEM, and even for book-based scholars would be totally inconsistent with our treatment of, e.g., novelists, for whom every book is listed. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  For most research journal papers, even when the contents of the paper is covered in-depth in a chapter of a textbook (say), it would be better to have a Wikipedia article about the topic of the paper than a Wikipedia article about the paper itself. There may be papers that are separately notable from their topic but they are so rare that, looking through our existing Wikipedia articles on journal papers, I didn't see any truly convincing examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  My usual go-to example of a notable paper is "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". DMacks (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's an important paper and one I wouldn't even consider the deletion of. But by "truly convincing" I meant that there is clear WP:GNG coverage of the paper itself, considered separately from its topic and its history of discovery. Which sources in that article do you think provide that? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Arguably the Andrew Wakefield Lancet paper would meet GNG, but as you said would still be better covered in an article on the larger scandal (as it is currently). I think coverage that actually critically discusses a paper's conclusions/rationale/narrative, rather than just the results of experiments, would probably hew to GNG better.

  The Market for Lemons might be an example of a paper that became synonymous with the concept it introduced and is best covered in its own article. JoelleJay (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  The paper gets highlighted for its omission of Rosalind Franklin as an example of sexism. And it's also mentioned as an example of a major breakthrough (including that it led to a Nobel Prize) that is not one of the most highly-cited papers.[24] Both of these are coverage of the paper itself not of the scientific content. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Mark Kotter

There is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kotter on whether Mark Kotter passes WP:NPROF#C1 where additional comments would be welcome. He has an h-factor of 48, with 2 papers that have > 1K cites, but he has no major awards. There has been some confusion in the voting between NPROF & GNG criteria, plus there is a COI. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion leaned towards d but thanks to User:Ldm1954 and others got the correct result of keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)