More Index-Fiddling

Accurate Calculation of my E index

November 25, 2015

The index is just something I devised in order to take account both of most cited work and the total number of publications for any author. It also allows comparison of my work with the great scientists whose work I admire, for example Paul Dirac. The E index is E = AB, where A is the average number of citations per paper of the Hirsch h index, and B is the total number of publications (not necessarily confined to Google Scholar). My total number of publications is calculated from 651 Omnia Opera papers, 321 UFT papers of which I am author or co author, 202 translations of UFT papers by Alex Hill, and 464 essays, essay translations, broadcasts and Spanish language broadcsts. This is a total of 1,638 publications and broadcasts all on and all archived”

So, you are not only using the index for your cited work and multiplying it by the never-cited work, but you are also counting some papers twice (doubly-lost in translation) plus the efforts of others. Did you not point out recently that only disreputable department-heads do that sort of thing? It is all moot anyway, as nobody takes the slightest interest in your post-breakdown pseudoscientific work. There is another defect in your usual brand of scientometrics. You say that hits on websites are a more reliable guide. But how many real scientists have to post their papers on a personal website? That strategy is almost unique to the lunatic fringe: look at your friends, Searl and Bearden, they have to put their ‘publications’ on their websites. So how can your form of scientometrics be applied to real scientists, who publish in proper journals? Well, it can of course because bona fide journals now keep track of how many times a given paper has been downloaded from the online version. Sometimes the number of downloads is openly displayed. Counting downloads would indeed be a good system because perhaps not every paper will actually be cited. In fact, the ratio of citations to downloads would be a good guide to the worth of a paper; only good ones will be mentioned. Sadly , such a scheme would not help you Ron; you cannot get your outlandish ideas into a reputable journal in the first place. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: