linking back to brembs.net






My lab:
lab.png
Just yesterday I explained to the auditorium at the Robert Koch-Institut, what is wrong with scholarly publishing today. This morning, catching up with reading, I found this nice little letter to the editor of Nature:
Scientists teach students to evaluate critically the significance of their measurements, and to eschew meaningless decimal places thrown up when pocket calculators work out a quotient of two integers. So what are we to make of the recently released impact factors, including Nature's much advertised rating of '31.434' (see also http://www.nature.com/nature/about)? Has Thomson Reuters discovered a protocol that allows it to measure the impact of a journal with an accuracy of 32 p.p.m.?
Quoting this figure conveys the wrong impression — that innumerate marketing is trumping common sense at the heart of science's leading journal.

Nice! It only makes me wonder, though, is the impression that's being conveyed really all that wrong? devilmad.png
Posted on Friday 09 October 2009 - 08:37:50 comment: 0
{TAGS}


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: 0.0519 sec, 0.0042 of that for queries.