IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i4d10.1007_s11192-022-04281-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Kardashian Index: a study of researchers' opinions on twitter 2014–2021

Author

Listed:
  • Kerrington Powell

    (Texas A&M Health Science Center)

  • Alyson Haslam

    (University of California San Francisco)

  • Vinay Prasad

    (University of California San Francisco)

Abstract

The Kardashian Index was designed for comedic purposes and meant to highlight researchers with minimal scholar contribution but oversized social media influence. We sought to examine attitudes and understanding of the Kardashian index by conducting a retrospective observational study of tweets retrieved from the Twitter API, Academic Track. From July 30th, 2014 to May 1st, 2021, 5826 unique tweets containing the phrase "Kardashian index” or related search terms were identified. Interest in the Kardashian Index peaked around the time of publication (July 30th, 2014), though the metric received continued discussion. One hundred random tweets were analyzed to see if the conversation points were positive, negative, or neutral. A majority (29%) of the tweets were neutral. Twenty-three percent of the tweets addressed the user’s own K-Index value, while 21% and 17% of the tweets were either critical or joking, respectively. Only a minority of tweets are critical of or appreciate the humor of the Kardashian index. The majority discuss the term matter-of-factly. Although the Kardashian Index was created in a lighthearted manner, a more serious tone emerges, prompting questions about the shifting role of scholarly and public influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerrington Powell & Alyson Haslam & Vinay Prasad, 2022. "The Kardashian Index: a study of researchers' opinions on twitter 2014–2021," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1923-1930, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04281-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04281-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04281-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04281-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    2. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2021. "Researchers’ attitudes towards the h-index on Twitter 2007–2020: criticism and acceptance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5361-5368, June.
    3. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Prodhan Mahbub Ibna Seraj & Blanka Klimova & Rubina Khan, 2024. "Visualizing Research Trends in English Language Teaching (ELT) From 2013 to 2022: A Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.
    2. Alberto Saracco, 2022. "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Citations," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 326-330, December.
    3. Tuan V. Nguyen & Ly T. Pham, 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 107-117, October.
    4. Fuentes, Agustín & Espinoza, Ulises J. & Cobbs, Virginia, 2024. "Follow the citations: Tracing pathways of “race as biology” assumptions in medical algorithms in eGFR and spirometry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    5. Zhichao Wang & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2021. "Performance Analysis of Hospitals in Australia and its Peers: A Systematic Review," CEPA Working Papers Series WP012021, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    6. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    7. Marie-Violaine Tatry & Dominique Fournier & Benoît Jeannequin & Françoise Dosba, 2014. "EU27 and USA leadership in fruit and vegetable research: a bibliometric study from 2000 to 2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2207-2222, March.
    8. Katarzyna Piwowar‐Sulej, 2021. "Core functions of Sustainable Human Resource Management. A hybrid literature review with the use of H‐Classics methodology," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 671-693, July.
    9. Monika Blišťanová & Peter Koščák & Michaela Tirpáková & Magdaléna Ondicová, 2023. "A Cross-Comparative Analysis of Transportation Safety Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    11. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    12. Sebastian Vogl & Thomas Scherndl & Anton Kühberger, 2018. "#Psychology: a bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1253-1269, June.
    13. Artemis Chaleplioglou, 2024. "Papers in and Papers out of the Spotlight: Comparative Bibliometric and Altmetrics Analysis of Biomedical Reports with and without News Media Stories," Publications, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Beáta Gavurová & Martina Halásková & Samuel Koróny, 2019. "Research and Development Indicators of EU28 Countries from Viewpoint of Super-efficiency DEA Analysis," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 225-242.
    16. Horbach, Serge & Aagaard, Kaare & Schneider, Jesper W., 2021. "Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science," MetaArXiv aqyhg, Center for Open Science.
    17. Gil-Clavel, Sofia & Wagenblast, Thorid & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Farmers’ Incremental and Transformational Climate Change Adaptation in Different Regions: A Natural Language Processing Comparative Literature Review," SocArXiv 3dp5e, Center for Open Science.
    18. A. Velez-Estevez & P. García-Sánchez & J. A. Moral-Munoz & M. J. Cobo, 2022. "Why do papers from international collaborations get more citations? A bibliometric analysis of Library and Information Science papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7517-7555, December.
    19. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    20. Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04281-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.