[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Impact Factors: a better way.
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Impact Factors: a better way.
- From: Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:12:42 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
The problem arises from a tenure committee, a study section deciding on the merit of an applicant's publications. One far out solution would be that the practice could be encouraged for the responsible party on such committees or members of such study sections to actually read the article or have an expert in the field read it, you know, like judge it on its actual merits rather than where it was published. That would be a standard to which the wise and the honest could repair. RF = = = = = = = = = Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu> Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu 06/28/06 07:23 PM Please respond to liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject PLOS Medicine and Impact Factors The Impact Factor Game It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature The PLoS Medicine Editors http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10%2 E1371%2Fjournal%2Epmed%2E0030291 A typical quote from the article and call to action: "During the course of our discussions with Thompson Scientific, PLoS Medicine's potential impact factor-based on the same articles published in the same year-seesawed between as much as 11 (when only research articles are entered into the denominator) to less than 3 (when almost all article types in the magazine section are included, as Thomson Scientific had initially done-wrongly, we argued, when comparing such article types with comparable ones published by other medical journals). At the time of writing this editorial, we do not know exactly where our 2005 impact factor has settled. But whatever it turns out to be, as you might guess from this editorial, we feel the time has come for the process of "deciding" a journal's impact factor to be debated openly. Something that affects so many people's careers and the future of departments and institutions cannot be kept a secret any longer." Chuck Hamaker Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services Atkins Library University of North Carolina Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223
- Prev by Date: Accession suggestion
- Next by Date: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates
- Previous by thread: Accession suggestion
- Next by thread: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates
- Index(es):