academiaEntertainmentFeaturedGoogleResearchScience & Technology

How Larry the cat became a widely cited researcher

admin
October 17, 2025
0Points
0
1
How Larry the cat became a widely cited researcher

Google Scholar is a wonderful research resource. The free service covers a huge amount of the global scientific publishing enterprise, encompassing peer-reviewed articles, books, reports, conference papers, and preprints. It’s easy to use and accessible to anyone.

It also compiles citation counts as a rough indicator of a researcher’s influence. Of particular interest to academicians and university administrators is a scholar’s h-index. An h-index of 10, for instance, means a person has 10 papers with at least 10 citations each. The higher the h-index, the more influential the researcher’s work.

A recent prank by the Northwestern University metascience graduate student Reese Richardson and the Cambridge University engineer Nick Wise shows the h-index can be easily gamed to produce nonsensical results. A young writer named Larry Richardson’s recent articles on ostensibly abstruse mathematical issues earned him an h-index of 12. But “Larry Richardson” is a cat—briefly the world’s most cited cat. The pranksters created a profile for Larry and uploaded 12 self-citing fake articles to the preprint site ResearchGate, which gave the kitty that impressive h-index.

Funny, yes, but highlighting a serious problem. Many top-ranked universities rely on citation counts when considering hiring or promotion. And over 60 percent, according to a February study of citation mills in Scientific Reports, obtained citation data from Google Scholar. Anyone want to hire a mathematically gifted feline?

Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 96
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .