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 individual people in way that is transparent and useful and, hopefully, helps treat the "CNS Disease".
There is a better metric than the impact factor: the eigenfactor.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
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…
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…
In scientific publishing, one of the important things is what is known as the "impact factor" which is the the average number of citations a journal receives over a 2 year period. The impact factor is often used by librarians and researchers to determine which journals to purchase and where to…
I have obtained a document that describes the secret, inner workings of the on line publication PLoS ONE. The document also exposes future plans for the enterprise.
The link is below the fold.
The link for the PDF of the document is here. Don't tell anyone where you got it.
From the Abstract…
I'm on board with everything except cross-referencing to the social sciences. I would guess that it is responsible for this outcome:
Nature: EF 1.9917, AI 17.563
Science: EF 1.905, AI 18.287
Cell: EF 0.65975, AI 17.037
PNAS: EF 1.8301, 5.1534
I like PNAS, but its EF seems overly high. Nothing is perfect, of course, but this worries me.