In the sense that I've read most of their papers, I've even reviewed several of them.
I've literally just handed in a report for an expert committee to hire a new faculty member, and I had read papers from all applicants that were relevant and reviewed for more than half of them.
>> I've served on several program committees
> Then maybe stop complaining and start critiquing.
I'm not complaining about anything. I just tried to lay out my point of view.
And yes, I'm aware of the painful measures that citations and impact factors are, but, like any other HN reader, I'm aware of Goodhart's law.
My point is that we're (I'm) not using citations or publication points to rank researchers. We know them.
> In what way? Their prestige?
In the sense that I've read most of their papers, I've even reviewed several of them.
I've literally just handed in a report for an expert committee to hire a new faculty member, and I had read papers from all applicants that were relevant and reviewed for more than half of them.
>> I've served on several program committees
> Then maybe stop complaining and start critiquing.
I'm not complaining about anything. I just tried to lay out my point of view.
And yes, I'm aware of the painful measures that citations and impact factors are, but, like any other HN reader, I'm aware of Goodhart's law.
My point is that we're (I'm) not using citations or publication points to rank researchers. We know them.