linking back to brembs.net





Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
 Currently Online (23)
 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
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm just too thick to get it. But over the last few days I've been on the receiving end of quite some flak for my criticisms of Thomson Scientific's impact factor (IF) by, of all poeple, open access supporters! The discussion has been going on behind closed doors in two different threads on a message board for editors of PLoS One. Obviously, these discussions are confidential, so there won't be any names, but let me give you the gist of the debate.
Currently, Thomson Scientific (TS) is not listing PLoS One. Therefore, PLoS One does not have an IF. PLoS One editors are negotiating with TS to get listed, but so far without effect. Given the current weight of the IF in promotion, grants and tenure, it's understandable that people would like to have PLoS One listed with TS. But the whole philosophy behind PLoS One is that it shouldn't matter where something is published. Post-publication review is what should determine the quality of a publication after it was published, not some editor at some journal before peer-review. This may be one of the reasons (my speculation here) that TS is so reluctant to list PLoS One: if this concept is successful, it would eradicate the IF along with journals. So on the message board, I have been arguing that instead of bolstering the value of the IF, We, the scientists, should declare our independence of the IF and start creating a fairer, better publishing system, where scientists and not editors decide what is high-qality and breakthrough research, what is the kind of bread-and-butter research without which no breakthroughs can happen and which studies are not worth the bytes they occupy in cyberspace. The weaknesses of the IF are well known and covered. Despite the flawed nature of the IF, quite a number of people are defending its use and demand PLoS One should do everything possible to get listed. Here are a few quotes from my fellow PLoS One academic editors:
I agree with all that has been stated about the negative aspects of the IF. However, the REALITY is that the uninitiated, such as a Committe judging tenure, or a Committee deciding on a new Chair appointment, absolutely require Impact Factors for each article.
[...]
Therefore there is no use in arguing against the importance or lack of same of the IF.....lets just get it.
[...]
Scientists (sad but true) belong to the most conservative professionals in general. Despite anything that is counting agaist the IF, this will remain the measure for 99% of us for time to come.
[...]
Authors will still care about it, although they will officially say that IF's are ridiculuous. But scientists are hypocrits (like most people) and they will continue to send their papers to high-IF journals, whether we like it or not.
[...]
I say this with some sadness, because I myself do not care much about IF:s, but I know a terrible lot who does and I have given up all my attempts to discuss this with people, since it seems hopeless to argue about. That's human nature, I guess.
[...]
People are still quite concerned about IF:s, although they admit that they are misleading, but as long as the research finance system favours authors who publish articles in high-IF journals, they will continue to try get published there, whether we like it or not.
[...]
I couldn't agree more with all that is being said about IFs. Unfortunately, the reality for most academics is that all kinds of evaluation committees use IFs to evaluate a researcher's output.
[...]
I know how flawed IF is, but we just cannot be blind to the reality and should still make a best effort to have PLoS ONE indexed by Thomson.
[...]
The reasons you enumerate against the IF system are of course valid. However, IFs are still the most used way of evaluating a researcher's career and value. Even if we find this ridiculous, it's just the way it is. Therefore, I find it very important for PLoS ONE to try to get an IF, independently of the other suggestions that have been made.

And so on and so on. It's basically always: "I know the IF is really bad, but what could be possibly do about it? So let's try to arrange ourselves with it".
How can people who donate time and enthusiasm for the open access movement and publishing reform be so fatalistic? WE are the customers of the monopolist private company that TS is. WE decide who we promote and who gets tenure. How can something as flawed and pernicious as the IF have so much control over people? I just don't get it. Do you?

Posted on Wednesday 03 September 2008 - 15:27:21 comment: 7
citation metrics   science publishing   impact factor   PLoS One   

Comments
Anonymous posted on 03 Sep 08: 15:56 : Why are open access supporters defending the impact factor?
Guest


Reply to this
No, I don't get it. There's a place for realpolitik, but this is not it -- authors have the real power in this situation. I am very disappointed that PLoS, especially PLoS ONE, will not stand up and openly refuse to be part of the Impact Factor Insanity.

Bill Hooker posted on 03 Sep 08: 16:04 : Why are open access supporters defending the impact factor?
Guest


Reply to this
(The comment above is me, forgot to sign.)

kevin z posted on 03 Sep 08: 20:25 : Why are open access supporters defending the impact factor?
Guest


Reply to this
PLoS ONE should define the FU factor for these gutless cowards. So much for the bold movers and shakers of the publishing world.

Peter Suber posted on 04 Sep 08: 08:18 : Why are open access supporters defending the impact factor?
Guest


Reply to this
I wrote about these issues in an article published on Tuesday,

"Thinking about prestige, quality, and open access", SPARC Open Access Newsletter, September 2, 2008
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-08.htm#prestige

See esp. Section 8.

I argue that *universities* should stop relying on IFs to evaluate the quality of faculty or their work. But it doesn't follow that *journals* shouldn't stop caring about IF.

Peter

bjoern posted on 04 Sep 08: 11:10 : Why are open access supporters defending the impact factor?
Comments: 159


Reply to this
That's a great article! Thanks for sharing!

kaizen5 posted on 29 Oct 09: 07:19 : comment
Guest


Reply to this
That's a great article! Thanks for sharing! I argue that *universities* should stop relying on IFs to evaluate the quality of faculty or their work. But it doesn't follow that *journals* shouldn't stop caring about IF.
kaizen5, http://auctions.fastrealestate.net

bjoern posted on 29 Oct 09: 08:48 : Why are open access supporters defending the impact factor?
Comments: 159


Reply to this
Agreed. However, in the age of the internet, aren't journals irrelevant anyway? If you can get all the scientific literature on one harddrive, basically, why partition it into arbitrary chunks? Makles no sense to me...

Submit comment
Subject
Username:
Comment:

Render time: 0.7295 sec, 0.4549 of that for queries.