{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01740139211136891, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.120567375886525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Distinguishing Impact From Productivity.

We in academic roles spend a great deal of time evaluating the publication records of other scholars who are candidates for positions, promotions, tenure, funding, or awards. We may take note of the total or annual number of publications, the number and characteristics of those that have appeared since a point such as completion of the PhD or original academic appointment, the quality or reputation of the journals in which the publications appeared, whether the candidate was the first author or a co-author, or the influence of the publications on subsequent developments in the field. My goal is to encourage evaluators to become more focused and thoughtful in judging publication expectations at various stages of a career and in various contexts. Many judgments fall into two categories: productivity and impact.