Iran is world’s 15th leading scientific nation: Scopus ranking

[PWFI]

Lool look who's talking about third class? And go through the posts before saying no one has talked about India.

Btw what what rank is Pakistan? Is it even in top 20? Or 30? Or even 40 in fact The joke's on you mate.

There is a reason why pakistani call you "hindu", you come here for trolling and you get trolled----when did i talk about pakistan?

 

[aakash_2410]

There is a reason why pakistani call you "hindu", you come here for trolling and you get trolled----when did i talk about pakistan?

Religious taunt. Really? That too coming from a P4ki? lool And you didn't but the word 'India' was mentioned hence he commented so, no need to get your panties in a twist mate. Calm down

 

[PWFI]

Religious taunt. Really? That too coming from a P4ki? lool And you didn't but the word 'India' was mentioned hence he commented so, no need to get your panties in a twist mate. Calm down

Where did he Lt.H mention in his post?
Here is his post:

Iran was not responsible for the golden age of Islam. Iran didn't exist then.

I don't know why you guy's sh!t in your pant, even when people don't give you a sh!t---care to explain?

 

[Takaavar]

Were Iraqi's Persians before they converted into Arabs? I remember Babylon was a major city in the Persian empire.

People of Iraq were mainly Semitic peoples, and in Sassanian era right before Islamic era the name of the province of "Iraq" or Babylonia was "Asorestan" means land of Assyrians/Arameans. Btw Middle Persian was also spoken in Iraq even in Islamic era, it was replaced by Arabic after the infamous Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf gained power.

Conquering land does not make it Persian, the founding of Baghdad was a result of the destruction of Ctesiphon, Baghdad just another new city a few km north of Ctesiphon supposed to replace its role as capital. Iraq and Iran share history and culture because of the 1000+ years both being under 1 empire, so the name is probably Persian.

I don’t think Baghdad has been a capital in an Iranian empire since its new built, you mean Ctesiphon or some other destroyed cities.

Baghdad was an Important city populated by Persians in the post-Islamic era.

You guys are both right but you are talking about two different cities, there was a Baghdad city built by Sassanians but that was small city, later in Abbasid era Baghdad was rebuilt and became a major city.
I've read somewhere Baghdad was built by Barmakids and that's why it was built in such a way that its main gate which was called Bab al-Dawla or The Gate of the State/Country was its eastern gate, toward Khorasan.

 

[Cheetah786]

Lolzzz i think Pakistan was responsible for the golden age of Islam....... rest all the countries didnt exist or were ruled by pakistan !!

Ha Ha Made you think

 

[Sam1980]

I can't believe people are happy over this! Come on, Iran can do better, 15th is not good enough! Publishing alone is also not enough! We need quality papers! With high citations and high impact factors! I believe with proper management we can fix that! Getting rid of sanctions helps too! Especially with recent developments!! (As in bad things!)

 

[Shahnameh]

Persia is in a mountanious region, the golden age of Islam took place during the Abbasid caliphate which its capitals were Kufa and Baghdad, not Persia, though Iraq was part of Persian dynasties before the whole Arab invasion, and it was mentioned as Iranian heartland, it still is not Persia. Most inventions took place in Baghdad though people from all over the caliphate came there to study.

The only major Persian who was at baghdad was the khwarizmi.
Even if he did stay at baghdad, that does not change the fact he was a ethnic Persian, does it?
vast majorty of Persian were in Iran, not baghdad. Persian were responsible for majorty of the achievement of that time, where they studied is irrelevant. When I say they were Persian does not mean they were from Iran as you know it today. They could have been Persians from easter parts of Persia.

This nonsense about baghdad being center of that time is pure exaggeration.
very large number of achievement were made in Iran, such as Isfehan. There was a astronomical observatory called Maragheh observatory where people as far as China came to study there. It seem you are trying to give the achievement to baghdad and try and arabify the achievements.

 

[Doritos11]

The only major Persian who was at baghdad was the khwarizmi.
Even if he did stay at baghdad, that does not change the fact he was a ethnic Persian, does it?
vast majorty of Persian were in Iran, not baghdad. Persian were responsible for majorty of the achievment of the that time, where they studied is irrelevant.

This nonsense about baghdad being center of that time is pure exaggeration.
very large number of achievement were made in Iran, such Isfehan. There was a astronomical observatory called Maragheh observatory where people as far as China came to study there. It seem you are trying to give the achievment to baghdad and try and arabify the achievements.

Offtopic , I ignored the last posts so ignore them aswell.

 

[Shahnameh]

15th in the world means nothing, what matters is
numbers+quality+ how much of those achievements you apply to industry!!!!

How about quality? H index of Iran is 121, lower than-Portugal, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, Mexico, Egypt, Thailand, Chile, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Venezuela, Kenya, nice examples.

This is the problem, quality is very bad.
In my opinion, Iran needs to give equal if not more priority to quality.

 

[Penguin]

How about quality? H index of Iran is 121, lower than-Portugal, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, Mexico, Egypt, Thailand, Chile, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Venezuela, Kenya, nice examples.

The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. The index can also be applied to the productivity and impact of a group of scientists, such as a department or university or country, as well as a scholarly journal. The index was suggested by Jorge E. Hirsch, a physicist at UCSD, as a tool for determining theoretical physicists' relative quality[1] and is sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number.
...
The h-index serves as an alternative to more traditional journal impact factor metrics in the evaluation of the impact of the work of a particular researcher. Because only the most highly cited articles contribute to the h-index, its determination is a relatively simpler process. Hirsch has demonstrated that h has high predictive value for whether a scientist has won honors like National Academy membership or the Nobel Prize. The h-index grows as citations accumulate and thus it depends on the 'academic age' of a researcher.

...

Hirsch intended the h-index to address the main disadvantages of other bibliometric indicators, such as total number of papers or total number of citations. Total number of papers does not account for the quality of scientific publications, while total number of citations can be disproportionately affected by participation in a single publication of major influence (for instance, methodological papers proposing successful new techniques, methods or approximations, which can generate a large number of citations), or having many publications with few citations each. The h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output.

There are a number of situations in which h may provide misleading information
- The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a paper. The h-index and similar indexes tend to favor fields with larger groups, e.g. experimental over theoretical.
- The h-index does not account for the typical number of citations in different fields. Different fields, or journals, traditionally use different numbers of citations.
- The h-index discards the information contained in author placement in the authors' list, which in some scientific fields is significant.
-The h-index is bounded by the total number of publications. This means that scientists with a short career are at an inherent disadvantage, regardless of the importance of their discoveries. This is also a problem for any measure that relies on the number of publications. However, as Hirsch indicated in the original paper, the index is intended as a tool to evaluate researchers in the same stage of their careers. It is not meant as a tool for historical comparisons.
- The h-index does not consider the context of citations. For example, citations in a paper are often made simply to flesh out an introduction, otherwise having no other significance to the work. - h also does not resolve other contextual instances: citations made in a negative context and citations made to fraudulent or retracted work. This is also a problem for regular citation counts.
- The h-index gives books the same count as articles making it difficult to compare scholars in fields that are more book-oriented such as the humanities.
- The h-index does not account for confounding factors such as "gratuitous authorship", the so-called Matthew effect, and the favorable citation bias associated with review articles. Again, this is a problem for all other metrics using publications or citations.
- The h-index has been found to have slightly less predictive accuracy and precision than the simpler measure of mean citations per paper. However, this finding was contradicted by another study.
- The h-index is a natural number which reduces its discriminatory power. Ruane and Tol therefore propose a rational h-index that interpolates between h and h + 1.[16]
- The h-index can be manipulated through self-citations, and if based on Google Scholar output, then even computer-generated documents can be used for that purpose, e.g. using SCIgen.

h-index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia