China is second only to the US in quality research | Nature

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
It is so funny to see an IDIOT who doesn't reliaze his IDIOCY and keep Demonstrating his IDIOCY and humiliating himself in front of public.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Shall we put it to vote then?

Man who is sharing sources for his every point Vs the retard who is bitching China stronk.

Man who shared a source for China being last in the top 20 Vs the retard who is bitching China stronk.

Man who shared the source for levels of CPA including self citation for Chinese articles Vs the retard who is bitching China stronk.

Do this world a favour, don't have kids, ever. You will pass your retardation to the next generation. :scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2:

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496

Antam1505

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
65
Likes
1
Shall we put it to vote then?

Man who is sharing sources for his every point Vs the retard who is bitching China stronk.

Man who shared a source for China being last in the top 20 Vs the retard who is bitching China stronk.

Man who shared the source for levels of CPA including self citation for Chinese articles Vs the retard who is bitching China stronk.

Do this world a favour, don't have kids, ever. You will pass your retardation to the next generation. :scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2::scared2:

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

What is you sharing?? you only share your stubborn belief that China is weak whatever the fact and situation :laugh:

You cant explain anything!

Do you know what H-Index mean?

Do you know why Nature.com mention China as second rank in top 100?

Cant you do math:
the 30% low quality citation leave 70% good quality citation.
The 70% x 450,000 = 315,000, that figure still put China as second rank above Japan, Germany, France, etc.
 

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
One of the lowest rates of citations and yet

CHINA STRONK..........
 

Antam1505

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
65
Likes
1
Last edited:

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
So research quality is not directly proportional to the number of credible citations. Good to know that in lalaland where you come from this kind of correlation do not exists.

 

Antam1505

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
65
Likes
1
So research quality is not directly proportional to the number of credible citations. Good to know that in lalaland where you come from this kind of correlation do not exists.


Quality of Research
NREPP's Quality of Research ratings are indicators of the strength of the evidence supporting the outcomes of the intervention. Higher scores indicate stronger, more compelling evidence. Each outcome is rated separately because interventions may target multiple outcomes (e.g., alcohol use, marijuana use, behavior problems in school), and the evidence supporting the different outcomes may vary.

NREPP uses very specific standardized criteria to rate interventions and the evidence supporting their outcomes. All reviewers who conduct NREPP reviews are trained on these criteria and are required to use them to calculate their ratings.

Criteria for Rating Quality of Research

Each reviewer independently evaluates the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using the following six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis
http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/ReviewQOR.aspx

As you said the CITATION QUALITY is meassured by the CPA right?

:lol:
 

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
Quality of Research
NREPP's Quality of Research ratings are indicators of the strength of the evidence supporting the outcomes of the intervention. Higher scores indicate stronger, more compelling evidence. Each outcome is rated separately because interventions may target multiple outcomes (e.g., alcohol use, marijuana use, behavior problems in school), and the evidence supporting the different outcomes may vary.

NREPP uses very specific standardized criteria to rate interventions and the evidence supporting their outcomes. All reviewers who conduct NREPP reviews are trained on these criteria and are required to use them to calculate their ratings.

Criteria for Rating Quality of Research

Each reviewer independently evaluates the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using the following six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis
http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/ReviewQOR.aspx

As you said the CITATION QUALITY is meassured by the CPA right?

:lol:

Outcome measures should have acceptable reliability to be interpretable. "Acceptable" here means reliability at a level that is conventionally accepted by experts in the field.

  • Validity of Measures

Outcome measures should have acceptable validity to be interpretable. "Acceptable" here means validity at a level that is conventionally accepted by experts in the field.

:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:
 

Antam1505

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
65
Likes
1
Outcome measures should have acceptable reliability to be interpretable. "Acceptable" here means reliability at a level that is conventionally accepted by experts in the field.

  • Validity of Measures

Outcome measures should have acceptable validity to be interpretable. "Acceptable" here means validity at a level that is conventionally accepted by experts in the field.

:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:

And so? why are you laughing at your own stupidity and ignorance.

Is your article saying the low CPA of chinese citation due to those reliability measures and validity?

If you think so, please read again your own article. No use bragging article without understanding it.

The CPA mean citation per article or bibliometrics or called "Citation Analysis", or H-Index.

Citation analysis is the examination of the frequency, patterns, and graphs of citations in articles and books.[1][2] It uses citations in scholarly works to establish links to other works or other researchers.[3] Citation analysis is one of the most widely used methods of bibliometrics. For example, bibliographic coupling and co-citation are association measures based on citation analysis (shared citations or shared references).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_analysis

So it only shows how many times or how frequent the citation used in scholarly works.
Nothing to do with "Reliability" and "Validity"
 

Martian

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,624
Likes
423
Irrelevant to Nature Ranking Index

It doesn't matter whether a percentage of Chinese publications is plagiarized or not.

Nature did not accept for publication (after thorough review which usually lasts six months) any unoriginal research from China.

Thus, the Nature Ranking Index is not related at all to whatever problem that might exist within Chinese publications.

Now "Blueblood," if you don't mind, stop trolling in my threads.
 

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
Hirsch intended the h-index to address the main disadvantages of other bibliometric indicators, such as total number of papers or total number of citations. Total number of papers does not account for the quality of scientific publications, while total number of citations can be disproportionately affected by participation in a single publication of major influence (for instance, methodological papers proposing successful new techniques, methods or approximations, which can generate a large number of citations), or having many publications with few citations each. The h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output.

SJR - International Science Ranking 2015-07-26 15-04-52.png
 

blueblood

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
@Martian , had you cared to look around you would have found that I do not troll any other Chinese member. I only troll when snake oil peddlers like yourself come with all guns blazing.

I love to call bullshit for what it is. Nothing personal there. You think China's scientific papers are the second best in the world, I don't. You gave one source for your belief and I gave you three for mine and there's plenty more where they came from.

You stop propagating non-sense and everything will be fine.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@Martian , had you cared to look around you would have found that I do not troll any other Chinese member. I only troll when snake oil peddlers like yourself come with all guns blazing.

I love to call bullshit for what it is. Nothing personal there. You think China's scientific papers are the second best in the world, I don't. You gave one source for your belief and I gave you three for mine and there's plenty more where they came from.

You stop propagating non-sense and everything will be fine.
He is a known troll and I have seen him trolling a lot in Paki sponsored Indian defence forum. Now he is trolling here. May be he is here for the 50cents :hmm:
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top