tpoisot
commented
10 years ago I apologize for the lack of clarity. I meant that the definition assumed by Qr is simple. This has been corrected, and renders the further points in this comment moot.
Fixed in 8fad049
This brings me to a fundamental problem with the study – what is modularity and why should it be measured? The author states that the new metric “makes no assumption about what modularity is”. If this is really the case, then there is no point in defining a measure for it. To be useful, an assumption about what is being measured has to be made. This questions the claims and even policy recommendations made by the author. The difference in concepts and goals is likely a major reason why previous methods differ (e.g. unipartite vs. bipartite modularity suggested by Guimera et al., 2007). Only when a concept of interest is defined can methods be compared in how well they serve the purpose.