Reply to Comment on 'Are physicists afraid of mathematics?'

被引:0
|
作者
Kollmer, Jonathan E. [1 ,2 ]
Poeschel, Thorsten [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Gallas, Jason A. C. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Friedrich Alexander Univ, Inst Multiscale Simulat, D-91052 Erlangen, Germany
[2] Max Planck Inst Phys Komplexer Syst, D-01187 Dresden, Germany
[3] Univ Fed Paraiba, Dept Fis, BR-58051970 Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
[4] Inst Altos Estudos Paraiba, Rua Silvino Lopes 419-2502, BR-58039190 Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
来源
NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS | 2016年 / 18卷
关键词
EQUATIONS; COMMUNICATION; BIOLOGISTS;
D O I
10.1088/1367-2630/18/11/118004
中图分类号
O4 [物理学];
学科分类号
0702 ;
摘要
Based on citation data of biologists and physicists, we reiterate that trends in statistical indicators are not reliable to unambiguously blame mathematics for the existence or lack of paper citations. We further clarify that, contrary to claims in the Comment (Higginson and Fawcett 2016 New J. Phys. 18 118003), a clear statistical correlation between the number of equations and the citation success is not possible because the data is too noisy and not reliable for identifying trends unambiguously. Concerning their conclusions, we stress the well-know fact in statistics that even if correlation could be found, it by no means implies causality. Accordingly, to discuss ways of increasing citation rates by suppressing or hiding equations in appendices cannot be justified with statistics, even less so when based on small sets of very noisy data.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条