linking back to

My lab:

I just commented on a letter to the journal Nature on the use of Thomson Reuter's impact factor in China. Given the moderation of comments at Nature, I think I better post a copy of the letter and my comment here as well:
Nai-Zhuo Zhao
Many scientists in China share Nai-Xing Wang's dissatisfaction with the dominant role of journal impact factors in the country's scientific evaluation system (Nature 476,). But I contend that even an imperfect law is better than no law.Replacing this rigid evaluation system with a more flexible one could send Chinese academia into chaos. Leaders of universities and research institutions could then establish their own evaluation systems, designing them to favour their particular interests. For example, a professor who is connected to a scientific journal might be tempted to rank papers published in that journal more highly when evaluating the performance of his or her university.Chinese researchers should benefit from the strict implementation of impact-factor evaluation criteria. But the rewards for meeting these targets aren't always forthcoming. A good relationship with the few leading executives who control China's academia is also important, as it is for gaining access to the best scientific projects and for promotions.The key task is therefore to eradicate this autocratic control. Researchers would then be able to concentrate solely on their work.
I replied:
Dear Nai-Zhuo Zhao, you write: "I contend that even an imperfect law is better than no law" I think you might reconsider your stance in the light of the evidence. This particular 'law' is actually quite objectively worse than no law:
  1. The impact factor is not computed, it is negotiated (source)
  2. The impact factor cannot be reproduced, even if it were computed and not negotiated (source)
  3. The impact factor is not statistically sound, even if it were reproducible and computed (source)
Surely, throwing dice ('no law') would be better than a made up measure, concocted behind closed doors between multi-billion dollar corporations in order to siphon off yet more tax-payer funds from powerless libraries?
Posted on Thursday 22 September 2011 - 10:11:10 comment: 0

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: 0.0499 sec, 0.0048 of that for queries.