# A Measure of Research Taste

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08089 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.08089/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 67 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 May 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Optimization Methods for Large-Scale Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.04838/) (2016)
- [Construction of the Literature Graph in Semantic Scholar](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.02262/) (2018)
- [Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1306.3293/) (2013)
- [OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.11964/) (2019)
- [A review of the literature on citation impact indicators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1507.02099/) (2015)
- [A Century of Science: Globalization of Scientific Collaborations, Citations, and Innovations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05150/) (2017)
- [Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.06454/) (2015)
- [Reputation and Impact in Academic Careers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1303.7274/) (2013)
- [Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1403.2787/) (2014)
- [Author name disambiguation of bibliometric data: A comparison of several unsupervised approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.12746/) (2019)
- [The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.03234/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [A Network Analysis Approach to Conlang Research Literature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15370/) (2024)
- [Learning Individual Scientific Taste with Privileged Hindsight Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19719/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Researchers are often evaluated by citation-based metrics. Such metrics can inform hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. Concerns have been expressed that popular citation-based metrics incentivize researchers to maximize the production of publications. Such incentives may not be optimal for scientific progress. Here we present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste: the researcher's ability to focus on impactful contributions. The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity, thus incentivizing researchers to consider whether a publication is a useful addition to the literature. CAP is simple, interpretable, and parameter-free. We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics, using a corpus of millions of publications and hundreds of millions of citations with yearly temporal granularity. CAP produces qualitatively plausible outcomes and has a number of advantages over prior metrics. Results can be explored at https://cap-measure.org/