Colleagues/ I am posting to ask if you are aware of any efforts that have/seek to create (a) metric(s) that measure the The Prescience Of Citations(s) > Publication(s) > Research > Scholarship > Work > Etc. Relative To Current / Recent Citations(s) > Publication(s) > Research > Scholarship > Work > Etc. That Is >>> Are there Measures of Previous Activities that have / now been (more) widely Cited > Quoted > Etc > ? In Short > Are There Any/All Measure(s) Of The Impact of Those Who Knew / Saw The Future > Before Their Time ? (But Enough About Me [:-)]) [snap] Certainly Citaton Analyses / Studies Are One Metric > > > And I am aware of "A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures", which I blogged just over a year ago >>> Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R, 2009 A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures. PLoS ONE 4(6): e6022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022 Background The impact of scientific publications has traditionally been expressed in terms of citation counts. However, scientific activity has moved online over the past decade. To better capture scientific impact in the digital era, a variety of new impact measures has been proposed on the basis of social network analysis and usage log data. Here we investigate how these new measures relate to each other, and how accurately and completely they express scientific impact. [more] [snip] [BTW: Thanks Stevan Harnad For The Reminder / I Will ReVisit] But ...
What I Sense Is Much More Dynamic And Broader >>> Here Goes >>>
To What Degree Can One ***Measure and Incorporate*** >>> The *Weight* of a subsequently highly-cited ; highly-linked ; highly-shared ; etc. Article / Idea / Work >>> That Was Initially Dismissed or Rejected For Example > [snip] Rejecting Nobel-Class Papers On some occasions, referees have advised editors to reject papers which reported findings that eventually earned the Nobel Prize for their authors. Documented cases of such rejection include Severo Ochoa’s work on polynucleotide phosphorylase (Ochoa 1980); Hans Krebs’ account of the citric acid cycle (Dixon 1989); Rosalind Yalow’s initial work on radioimmunoassay (Yalow 1982); Murray Gell-Mann’s work on quarks (Crozon 1987); and Harmut Michel’s research on photosynthetic processes (Garfield 1989a). [snip] Juan Miguel Campanario, “Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles. Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations," Science Communication 16 no. 3. (March 1995): 306-325. [snip] BTW: We would not focus only on Nobel Prize winners; certainly less Noble [:-)] individuals should be considered >>> And Would Not The ***Number of Rejections*** prior to eventual publication and high-citations / Etc. be an Indicator of ??? >>>Prescience <<< ??? And Could Other Negative Actions (Criticism ; Protests ; Bad Reviews ; Etc.) Of A Work That Subsequently Became Widely Recognized As Innovative / Insightful / Pioneering / Etc. [?] Also Be Another Component Of ??? >>> The Vanguard Factor <<< ??? And Could The Lag Time Between Original Publication / Presentation / Etc. And Subsequent Adoption (At Various Thesholds) Be Useful, That Is >>> The Longer It Took For An Idea To Become Widely Accepted (At Specific Thesholds), The Greater The Vanguard Factor ? Others ? >>> Your (Prescient [:-)] Thoughts ? / Please Leave As A Comment On The Post At [ http://bit.ly/b6MVYx ] BTW: I've been/will be in touch with The Usual Suspects > Stevan, Gene, Barry, two of whom are native Bronxites like myself [To my knowledge Stevan is not [:-)] !!! Thanks A Million !!! /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Associate Professor Science and Technology Librarian Iowa State University Library Ames IA 50011 Follow Me On Twitter > http://twitter.com/GMcKBlogs " There Is Nothing More Powerful Than An Idea Whose Time Has Come!" / Victor Hugo [ http://bit.ly/b2i4Yl ]