We’d like to inform you that Research.com, a leading academic platform for researchers, has just released the 2022 Edition of our Ranking of Top 1000 Scientists in the field of Mathematics.
We are sure you will be very happy to learn that you have ranked #675 in the world ranking and #1 in Netherlands.
The ranking is based on the H-index metric provided by Microsoft Academic and includes only leading scientists with an H-index of at least 30 for academic publications made in the area of Mathematics.
My trick was to have been very lucky with some very early work, and then keep on publishing one or two papers a year, with every few years a paper which again was often cited. And somehow kept on being cited. I changed fields several times. Statisticians can stick their noses in, everywhere.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:52 am
Amazing what a mere statistician can achieve:
Dear Richard D. Gill,
We’d like to inform you that Research.com, a leading academic platform for researchers, has just released the 2022 Edition of our Ranking of Top 1000 Scientists in the field of Mathematics.
We are sure you will be very happy to learn that you have ranked #675 in the world ranking and #1 in Netherlands.
The ranking is based on the H-index metric provided by Microsoft Academic and includes only leading scientists with an H-index of at least 30 for academic publications made in the area of Mathematics.
My trick was to have been very lucky with some very early work, and then keep on publishing one or two papers a year, with every few years a paper which again was often cited. And somehow kept on being cited. I changed fields several times. Statisticians can stick their noses in, everywhere.
The H-index is really just the age-index.
The "Research.com" guys must be either total idiots or blind as bats. For I have exposed many elementary mathematical mistakes by Richard D. Gill for anyone to see for themselves, for example in the paper I submitted to RSOS and papers cited therein: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34887.37286.
.
