Most people, unlike you (according to your name, at least), are not paper machines.
Someone who works in a large department that values number of papers published and number of grants secured but doesn’t particularly care about quality of work, and so publishes four papers a year of poor quality, which are occasionally cited, but only by direct colleagues, vs. Douglas Hoftstadter, who rarely publishes anything but whose first work has been immensely influential, you’re going to get a worse picture than if you had just used IQ.
Expected cumulative lifetime output, then.
Two papers per year * 30 years of productive career = 60 papers.… :-(
Most people, unlike you (according to your name, at least), are not paper machines.
Someone who works in a large department that values number of papers published and number of grants secured but doesn’t particularly care about quality of work, and so publishes four papers a year of poor quality, which are occasionally cited, but only by direct colleagues, vs. Douglas Hoftstadter, who rarely publishes anything but whose first work has been immensely influential, you’re going to get a worse picture than if you had just used IQ.
Heh, I suppose that is one of the alternative readings of my handle.
Only four? Why, I know some (who will remain nameless) that published eight or ten papers last year alone.
But of course Goodhart’s law ruins everything.