Data analytics are changing the ways to judge the influence of papers and journals.
The base question is are citations the best indicator of impact, or are there other better emerging methods of indicating the impact of scholarly work?
Originally published in 1969. This book explains what is wrong with the traditional methodology of “inductive” reasoning and shows that the alternative scheme of reasoning associated with Whewell, Pierce and Popper can give the scientist a useful insight into the way he thinks.
References:
This recently rediscovered classic, first published in 1897, is an anecdotal guide for the perplexed new scientific investigator as well as a refreshing resource for the old pro.
This is certainly worth the read for the high qualities of its translation and vocabulary. There are lots of great aphorisms and brilliant bits of advice. Some of the parts about patriotism and information about things like picking a wife are anachronistically funny to read 100+ years after they were written.
