Talk:Nico Nagelkerke

Highly incomplete article
This article is highly incomplete. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) the article should support at least one of the following eight criteria for academic notability:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

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.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Some of these criteria may well be satisfied, in particular, item 1. The article should provide reliable sources documenting one or more of the criteria. I discussed this with a few editors. Some highly cited papers is a good sign, but the question is, did those papers have wider impact, for instance by being reported in newspapers or other kinds of science journalism, or leading to methodology which is now discussed in standard textbooks? Some of these criteria may well be satisfied, in particular, item 1. The article should provide reliable sources documenting one or more of the criteria. I discussed this with a few editors. Some highly cited papers is a good sign, but the question is, did those papers have wider impact, for instance by being reported in newspapers or other kinds of science journalism, or leading to methodology which is now discussed in standard textbooks?

Unfortunately, Nico Nagelkerke seems not to have been cultivating the standard academic social media. He has been retired for several years now but it still scientifically active and this had led to papers published in recent years assigning him various nominal affiliations. He published one paper long ago on a version of R2 for logistic regression, which has been cited more than six thousand times. The "Nagelkercke R2" is now standard concept in epidemiology. This very highly cited paper is: A Note on a General Definition of the Coefficient of Determination, N. J. D. Nagelkerke, Biometrika, Vol. 78, No. 3. (Sep., 1991), pp. 691-692. It's a note of one or two pages which filled an important need among users of logistic regression (the statistical work-horse of epidemiology). There are however several competing proposals, and different popular statistical packages use different generalisations of R2 from linear to logistic regression. Nagelkerke R2 is used in SPSS; McFadden R2 in STATA. There are yet more alternatives.

A good place to locate his publications is the PubMed site, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Nagelkerke+N

I would say that his citation counts are very *normal* for an academic of his age and in his field (medical statistics and epidemiology, contributing statistical expertise to the research in a big medical school of a research university). Neither remarkably large nor remarkably small. He has an excellent track record of co-authorship (as "the statistician on the team") of articles in medical journals, some of them with citation counts in the three digits. I do not see very important contributions to statistical methodology (highly cited papers in Biometrika, Biometrics, Statistics in Medicine) except for the famous R2 paper. Richard Gill (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Added material on R2 contribution to article
With help of NN himself I got an initial overview of the R2 business and added links to the article. One can say that his name is a "household name" in epidemiology thanks to his 1991 note on 2. Richard Gill (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)