linking back to brembs.net






My lab:
lab.png
Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
 Currently Online (15)
 Extra Information
MicroBlog
You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup

[23 Dec 12: 13:20]
Inbox zero! I don't even remember the last time I could say that!

[06 Aug 12: 14:21]
Phew! Done with nine 20min oral exams, three more to go. To be continued tomorrow...

[14 Oct 11: 11:45]
Just received an email from a computer science student - with an AOL email address?

[03 Jul 11: 22:26]
Google citation alerts suck: I just found out by accident I rolled over h-index of 13 and 500 citations http://blogarchive.brembs.net/citations.php

[21 May 11: 18:14]
6.15pm: Does god have Alzheimer? No #rapture in Europe...

[01 May 11: 11:31]
w00t! Just been invited to present at OKCon 2011! #OKCon2011


Networking

Subscribe to me on FriendFeed
Follow brembs on Twitter

Research papers by Björn Brembs
View Bjoern Brembs

Science Blog Directory
Random Video
SciSites
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 - 10:30:34 comment: 0
Thomson Scientific   impact factor   citation statistics   citation metrics   journal ranking   


You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup
Render time: 0.3373 sec, 0.0427 of that for queries.