linking back to brembs.net





Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
 Currently Online (18)
 Extra Information
MicroBlog
NeuroTwitter

[31 Aug 10: 19:42]
Nice read: Neuroscientist’s Embarrassment: Artificial Intelligence’s Opportunity. Mark Changizi

[27 Aug 10: 01:31]
Commenting issue on bjoern.brembs.net fixed!

[26 Aug 10: 16:33]
Comments are not working on bjoern.brembs.net right now. I'm working on the problem.

[17 Aug 10: 10:55]
Anybody waiting for a reply from me? I'm sorting out SMTP issues with the hotel here

[29 Jul 10: 01:55]
Just as now access to drinking water is a human right, access to the literature should be a scientific right.

[13 Jul 10: 13:05]
Just registered for this year's SfN meeting in San Diego. Are you coming, too?


Networking
Random Video
SciSites
GeoCounter
outils webmaster
Jeremy Green from King's College London writes in this week's issue of Science, in response to Kai Simons' editorial:
K. Simons's Editorial "The misused impact factor" (10 October, p. 165) reminded me of the Tolstoy story in which his brother tells him not to think about a white bear: When you say, "Don't think about it," it becomes hard to think of anything else. Instead, AAAS and Science should take the lead by defining some declarative "bibliometric postulates" that specify a code of conduct for the use of simplified indices. Postulates might include "numerical factors applied to journals should not be used to evaluate individuals" or "numerical journal factors should never be quoted without disclaimers explaining that they include falsified papers." Only an organization like Science with the backing of the non-commercially beholden AAAS has the profile to defend itself and scientists from enslavement to the impact factor's absurdly one-dimensional parameterization of achievement.
The sad thing is that especially the use of a journal-level metric such as Thomson's Impact Factor to evaluate individual scientists is so obviously wrong on so many levels that a statement to this extent should be about as necessary as a disclaimer "not for consumption" on a package of fishing hooks. This still holds even if the BIF were a valid metric, which, of course, it is not. Apparently, now the situation has gotten so out of hand in some places that scientists feel compelled to ask Science for help to encourage the dissemination of statements of the obvious even among scientists. How much worse will it get, before things start to change?

Posted on Friday 05 December 2008 - 10:21:51 comment: 0
impact factor   Thomson   

Render time: 0.8171 sec, 0.5926 of that for queries.