linking back to brembs.net





Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
 Currently Online (19)
 Extra Information
MicroBlog
NeuroTwitter

[15 Feb 10: 11:11]
W00t! Editor's selection at Researchblogging.org: http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=966

[11 Feb 10: 01:02]
Pharyngulated! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/religion_adaptation_or_by-prod.php

[26 Jan 10: 12:28]
New Theme! What do you think? http://bjoern.brembs.net

[04 Dec 09: 08:25]
Rolled over 400 citations today... http://bjoern.brembs.net/citations.php

[17 Nov 09: 08:45]
Students! You tell them for 45 minutes why their papers have to be in IMRaD format and some still hand in garbled, structureless papers!

[28 Oct 09: 04:17]
The m.o. of university administrations: divide competence until you can never be mad at anyone, because there are always so many others who can be blamed.


Networking
Random Video
SciSites
GeoCounter
outils webmaster
The journal "Epidemiology" has a series of great articles on why we need to get rid of Thomson Scientific's Impact Factor. I've reported about this ridiculously influencial number before and how irrational, stupid and detrimental to science it is (1, 2, 3). Here the links to the great Epidemiology articles (via Coturnix):
I think there's more than enough evidence that the Thomson Scientific impact factor is a pernicious invention that needs to be eradicated and replaced by a multivariate measure consisting of post-publication reviews, ratings, access statistics, citations, media coverage, link-counts, etc.

To say it with the authors at Epidemiology:
in its present format, the impact factor should be killed off, and the sooner the better.

Having a collection of impact measures will only be sensibly feasible in a large, decentralized databank in which all peer-reviewed scientific primary literature is collected, cross-referenced and stored. Of course, the algorithms for any such metric need to be transparent. The data is all there, the technology is around. Now we only need to get the word out and bring the majority of scientists behind us. If scientists are as rational as they claim, they have no choice but to follow their rationality and get on with the program

If this is so, why do we still have journals? One of the authors has the answer:

The irresistible fascination with (and picturesque uses of) a construct so scientifically weak as BIF are simple reminders that scientists are embedded in and embody culture. We are vain and contradictory human beings too [...].


Posted on Friday 09 May 2008 - 04:30:34 comment: 0
Thomson Scientific   impact factor   citation statistics   citation metrics   journal ranking   

Submit comment
Subject
Username:
Comment:

Render time: 0.7358 sec, 0.4911 of that for queries.