Re: WSJ in impact factor

[mccannj@musc.edu]

Probably unnecessary for readers of this list, but for those who 
want a better understanding of "page view" there is a very simple 
definition at:

<http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/page_view.html>

and more technical definitions of hits, visits, visitors, and page views at:

<http://www.opentracker.net/en/articles/hits-visitors-pageviews.jsp>

Jett McCann, MLS DM/AHIP
Assistant Director / Resources Management Services
Medical University of South Carolina Libraries
171 Ashley Avenue Suite 309
Charleston SC 29425
PH: 843-792-8309  FX: 843-792-7947
mccannj@musc.edu


--On Monday, June 5, 2006 6:16 PM -0400 "Joseph J. Esposito"
<espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

> No doubt many of the members of this list will already have seen the
> article in today's Wall St. Journal on "gaming" the impact factor for
> science journals.  As the WSJ site requires a subscription, the link is
> useless, though presumably many on this list have access through
> institutional subscriptions.  The byline is Sharon Begley, the headline
> is:  Science Journals Artfully Try To Boost Their Rankings.  It is dated
> June 5 and appears on page B1 of the hardcopy edition (so the online
> citation says).
>
> The gist of the article is that some journals are trying to increase
> their citation count in somewhat devious ways, thus improving their
> impact factor as measured by ISI. I doubt any of this comes as a surprise
> to anyone but a journalist, who, like FEMA, always get to the action ten
> years too late.
>
> What should be clear, however, is that impact factors and ISI's
> unofficial role as umpire for the academy are coming under heavy
> challenges and may indeed be bankrupt.  New measurements are needed, but
> of what kind?  I am myself biased toward page views, which speak to
> readership rather than authorship.  One of the benefits of using page
> views is that there is a huge Internet industry in the consumer sector
> that has already built the tools for counting and auditing page views.  I
> am sure there are other ideas worth considering.
>
> And, yes, this has important implications.  Page views put an emphasis on
> findability, which means more search engine optimization and less
> hierarchical Web site architectures.  Open Access lends itself to
> findability--indeed, it is OA's principal merit.  Page views militate
> against mediating interfaces, whether the portal of a publisher or a
> library.
>
> Universities "in-source" many things and "out-source" others; the logic
> behind some of these decisions is not always self-evident. What is truly
> odd, however, is the outsourcing of the certification process to
> publishers, whether commercial or not-for-profit, leaving ISI to stand
> behind home plate and call the balls and strikes.  Someone who wants to
> transform scholarly communications would start by selecting a new umpire.
>
> Joe Esposito