Talk:Jennifer Manlove

removal of google scholars?
Hey, @AManWithNoPlan! I really don't know much about notability for academics -- I'd put those google scholar citations in so that people could see that these were the most-cited that she was lead/sole author of. (I just arbitrarily chose the ones that had 200+ citations, again I don't know much about this subject area.) Is there some other way scholarly publications should be cited? —valereee (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the exact edit. I generally wrap them into the citation using the id area.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was this one: Special:Diff/1036118735. Is it that putting a link to google scholar is a better choice than a ref to it? —valereee (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Manlove&type=revision&diff=1036318524&oldid=1036118735 This makes it clear why you linked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally, if that's the best way to do it! Thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I do them a little differently. . I've almost neverused it except in a list of "most cited articles".   I link the citation, and then I use " According to Google Scholar, it has been cited    times.   for the first one, and then

"According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited  times   " for the others.

I normally list 5., but how far down I go depends on whether the article is being challenged. I also sometimes do it for an article I think does not meet WP:PROF, so I can say at the discussion how little they've been cited.

My wording might be a little too expansive--I'm still experimenting. I think it helps to have the number of the citations in the text. There is however the problem of updating, and AMWNP's way might be better in that respect.  DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @DGG! The one article has been cited almost 500 times, the other two over 200, which was why I decided to include those. Obviously that means her more recent publications don't get included (and she seems to be appearing less often as lead author in the past five years, which I believe is not unheard-of for established end-of-career academics who are trying to allow their co-authors to get that lead authorship credit. Or at least not for generous ones.)
 * So are you saying turn this into prose? —valereee (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Different faculty do all sorts of things about signing articles. My advisor didn't sign if all he had done was suggested the project and revised the draft of the article, but did sign if he was involved in either the experimentation or the analysis. (He would presumably have signed if he had written the article, but he did not generally do that.) He also made sure that every grad student and postdoc had one single-authored article to help them get a position. Most others would have signed if they had suggested the project. And there were other advisors who signed everything, on the basis they had raised the money and provided facilities. On the other hand, James Watson when he was at Harvard deliberately never signed the papers from his group, even though he may have had a large role in the project. He said in his autobiography he enjoyed mystifying people.
 * the current biomedical rules are of course, that everyone must specify exactly their role. This will make things easier to analyze in the future.
 * But there's a difference between citation analysis for the purposes of a rough evaluation, and a full bibliometric analysis, let alone a proper academic biography or history of science analysis.  We are not here to decide on appointments or grants, or to award prizes. We are just here to decide if it seems someone is appropriate for an article in a general encyclopedia .  We sometimes take ourselves too seriously in these determinations--. The only thing we must be careful about is to avoid gross errors or misrepresentation.
 * The main thing I currently check, is for multicenter medical studies, if all that someone did was contribute one or two patients to the pool for analysis. If that seems to be the case, I do not include it in the list of most cited articles.


 * Currently, I'm just adding lists of most cited articles. Most researchers want to list their most recent articles, and that's significant from their point of view--they need to attract students and postdocs. I have been thinking about routinely adding such a list if it isn't present. It is relevant to someone who might happen to have heard of a scientist, to wonder what they are currently doing as well as what they have done (and that relevance to the general reader is the basic criterion I use for content) Your question here has convinced me to that I ought to do it, and I shall start, when it's a person who is still active. i'm not sure how many to list, or if I should include the number of citations--because if it's a 2021 publication, there won't be many until 2022. I need to experiment, and then change the standard advice that I give.  Meanwhile,  I think you can do whatever is reasonable in the circumstances, as long as you say why they're included.  This isn't one of the areas where articles really have a rigid standard form.    DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)