If anyone is interested, Thompson has just released the new Impact Factors for scientific journals. Mark Patterson takes a look at IFs for PLoS journals and puts them in cool-headed perspective.
One day, hopefully very soon, this will not be news. What I mean by it is that there soon will be better metrics - ways to evaluate individual articles and individual people in way that is transparent and useful and, hopefully, helps treat the "CNS Disease". Journals will probably have their own metrics based on the value they add, but those metrics will not affect individual researchers' careers the way they do now.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
ScienceBlogling Bora, in discussing the new release of journal impact factors--an estimation of how widely read journal articles are--writes:
One day, hopefully very soon, this will not be news. What I mean by it is that there soon will be better metrics - ways to evaluate individual articles and…
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you are certainly aware that PLoS has started making article-level metrics available for all articles.
Today, we added one of the most important sets of such metrics - the number of times the article was downloaded. Each article now has a new tab on the top…
I just found out that the journal impact factors for 2005 were recently released, and as usual, the journals with the highest impact factors are not necessarily the ones that would be considered the most prestigious. Therefore, the following post from the archives, about an alternative rating…
Everyone and their grandmother knows that Impact Factor is a crude, unreliable and just wrong metric to use in evaluating individuals for career-making (or career-breaking) purposes. Yet, so many institutions (or rather, their bureaucrats - scientists would abandon it if their bosses would) cling…
Amen to that.
A reliance on journal impact factors to rate individual scientist work have probably done more to distort and impede scientific discovery than any amount of faith based zealots and pig ignorant politicians (you know who I'm talking about!). They are about as good at ranking how important the contents of a journal are, as first weekend box-office takings are at judging how good a movie is.
The sooner that researchers are freed from their tyranny the better!
My biggest issue with IFs is that they tend to be inflated for both review journals and journals closely linked to medicine. I'm not sure of how to correct for this, but it is something to keep in mind when evaluating IFs.
Dear Dr.Patterson
I was an author of Plos one.
Would you please give me a message why I can not find the impact factor of Plos one in 2007 at this moment? This journal published the first issue in 2006. Therefore, base on the rule of ISI, it should obtain a IF in year 2007. Alternatively, will people see it in year 2008?
Thanks a lot.
Best
Jianing
Jianing Wei: Mark has responded to that question in the comments on his post, please check over there.
Dear Dr.Patterson,
Thanks very much for releasing IF 2007.However, a lot of good journals have been missed this year, for example, Nat BioTech, Nat Cell Biology, Cell Cycle.Would you please tell me what's happen?
Best Wishes,
Dave
PLOS ONE can be found in the Master Journal List of Thomson. Anybody knows if they assign an IF to PLOS ONE next year?
I plan submitting a research article Plos one.
Would you please give me a message why I can not find the impact factor of Plos one in 2007 at this moment? will we expect a publication of Plos one IF in year 2008?
Thanks a lot
Dr Samuel Abdulkarim
I 'm an author of Plos one.
Would you please give me a message why I can not find the impact factor of Plos one in 2007 at this moment?
Are you including this Journal in the IF for 2008
Regards