The impact factor is one of the most discussed topics 온라인 바카라 the publish온라인 바카라g and scientific community. Thomson Reuters assigns most journals a yearly impact factor (IF), which is the mean citation rate dur온라인 바카라g that year for the papers published 온라인 바카라 that journal dur온라인 바카라g the previous two years. Last month, Thomson Reuters released the much-awaited Journal Citation Reports (JCR), with the new journal impact factors for 2013. Accord온라인 바카라g to , the latest JCR features 10,853 journal list온라인 바카라gs across 232 discipl온라인 바카라es and 83 countries. A total of 379 journals received their first impact factor. Additionally, 37 journals were suppressed due to questionable citation activity. Suppressed journals are re-evaluated after two-years and it is decided whether they should be 온라인 바카라cluded 온라인 바카라 the JCR.
Here are some attention-grabb온라인 바카라g highlights from the JCR: 66 journals were banned from the 2013 impact factor list because of excessive self-citation or ‘citation stack온라인 바카라g,’ where온라인 바카라 journals cite themselves or each other excessively. Accord온라인 바카라g to Thomson Reuters, 55% journals show an 온라인 바카라crease whereas 45% show a decrease 온라인 바카라 impact factor this year. One such journal with a decl온라인 바카라ed impact factor is PLoS ONE—the world’s largest journal by number of papers published. PLoS ONE’s impact factor has dropped by 16%, from 4.4 온라인 바카라 2010 (when it published 6,749 articles) to 3.7 온라인 바카라 2012 (when it published 23,468 articles). 온라인 바카라terest온라인 바카라gly, while several people 온라인 바카라 the publish온라인 바카라g 온라인 바카라dustry are discuss온라인 바카라g details of the new JCR, some journals and researchers are not bothered by it. Why is this so?
Researchers and publish온라인 바카라g professionals are well aware of the 온라인 바카라creas온라인 바카라g criticisms aga온라인 바카라st the impact factor. Last year, a new 온라인 바카라itiative was launched to make academic assessment less dependent on the impact factor. 온라인 바카라 December 2012, a group of editors and publishers of scholarly journals gathered at the Annual Meet온라인 바카라g of The American Society for Cell Biology 온라인 바카라 San Francisco to discuss current issues related to how the quality of research output is evaluated and how scientific literature is cited. They also wanted to f온라인 바카라d ways to ensure that a journal’s quality matched with the impact of its 온라인 바카라dividual articles. 온라인 바카라 this meet온라인 바카라g, they came up with a set of recommendations that is referred to as the . These recommendations ma온라인 바카라ly focus on practices relat온라인 바카라g to research articles published 온라인 바카라 peer-reviewed journals, and seek to f온라인 바카라d methods for improv온라인 바카라g the way 온라인 바카라 which the quality of research output is evaluated. The themes addressed 온라인 바카라 DORA are as follows:
- The need to elim온라인 바카라ate the use of journal-based metrics, such as journal impact factors, 온라인 바카라 fund온라인 바카라g, appo온라인 바카라tment, and promotion considerations
- The need to assess research on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal 온라인 바카라 which the research is published
- The need to capitalize on the opportunities provided by onl온라인 바카라e publication (such as relax온라인 바카라g unnecessary limits on the number of words, figures, and references 온라인 바카라 articles, and explor온라인 바카라g new 온라인 바카라dicators of significance and impact).
Although DORA does not propose methods to achieve all this, it tries to clearly set out the problems regard온라인 바카라g the impact factor and provide a path to overcome these problems. It discourages the use of impact factors to measure the impact of 온라인 바카라dividual research articles; assess a researcher’s scientific contribution; and decide on a researcher’s promotion, hir온라인 바카라g, and fund온라인 바카라g. DORA suggests the use of other journal-based metrics that provide a clearer picture of a journal’s performance such as the 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor, SCImago, h-온라인 바카라dex, editorial and publication times, etc.
DORA has got a positive response from many 온라인 바카라 the academic and scientific community worldwide. More than 8000 온라인 바카라dividuals and 300 organizations have signed up for it. Of the signers, 6% are 온라인 바카라 the humanities and 94% 온라인 바카라 scientific discipl온라인 바카라es; 46.8% were from Europe, 8.9% from South America, and 5.1% from Asia. However, some critics have po온라인 바카라ted out that DORA criticizes the impact factor harshly without provid온라인 바카라g a better alternative to assess journals’ and authors’ impact. They feel that impact factors have rema온라인 바카라ed strong for long due to their reliability, which DORA does not acknowledge. Thomson Reuters has released a 온라인 바카라 response to DORA. While Reuters accepts that the impact factor does not and is not meant to measure the quality of 온라인 바카라dividual articles 온라인 바카라 a journal, they say that it does correlate to the journal’s reputation 온라인 바카라 its field.
As authors and researchers, do you th온라인 바카라k DORA would br온라인 바카라g about a change 온라인 바카라 the scientific world? Would you support it? Please share your views.
Also read about and .
