G*****h
发帖数: 320 | 1 NSF、NCI 等也准备修改简历的格式，强调重要的工作、发现和结果之类的。链接：
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/call-to-aband
Title: In 'Insurrection,' Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal
Impact Factors
More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the
world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how
often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual's work. They
say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where
the studies are published.
Journal impact factors, calculated by the company Thomson Reuters, were
first developed in the 1950s to help libraries decide which journals to
order. Yet, impact factors are now widely used to assess the performance of
individuals and research institutions. The metric "has become an obsession"
that "warp[s] the way that research is conducted, reported, and funded,"
said a group of scientists organized by the American Society for Cell
Biology (ASCB) in a press release. Particularly in China and India, they say
, postdocs think that they should try to publish their work in only journals
with high impact factors.
The problem, the scientists say, is that the impact factor is flawed. For
example, it doesn't distinguish primary research from reviews; it can be
skewed by a few highly cited papers; and it dissuades journals from
publishing papers in fields such as ecology that are cited less often than,
say, biomedical studies.
In what they've dubbed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment
(DORA)—a document drafted last December at the annual ASCB meeting and
posted online today—the scientists write: "It is … imperative that
scientific output is measured accurately and evaluated wisely." Their 18
recommendations urge the research community to "eliminate" the use of
journal impact factors in funding, hiring, and promotion decisions.
Signatories include Science Editor-in-Chief Bruce Alberts (see his editorial
); AAAS, Science's publisher; dozens of other editors, journals, and
societies; as well as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Wellcome
Trust, which are major research charities.
"I see this as an insurrection. We don't want to be at the mercy of this
anymore," says ASCB Executive Director Stefano Bertuzzi. He adds that the
scientists aren't criticizing Thomson Reuters. "We're not attacking them in
any way," he says. Instead, the resolution puts the blame on the research
community for "the misuse of impact factors."
Bertuzzi says that his group realizes they won't change things overnight: "I
see this as the beginning of a conversation." Still, he says, there are
already signs of change.
For example, National Cancer Institute Director Harold Varmus is planning a
pilot test that will ask researchers submitting biosketches with their grant
proposals to describe their most important work instead of simply listing
their key papers. Varmus said recently that he wants researchers to stop
thinking that they must publish in only "certain hyper-prestigious journals.
" (In a similar move, the National Science Foundation recently changed its
biosketch guidelines to emphasize "products" such as data sets, not just
papers.)
Thomson Reuters did not respond to a request for comment.
*Update, 11:05 a.m., 17 May:
Thomson Reuters responded to the DORA in this statement, agreeing that: "No
one metric can fully capture the complex contributions scholars make to
their disciplines, and many forms of scholarly achievement should be
considered." The company notes that the impact factor "is singled-out in the
Declaration not for how it is calculated, but for how it is used." | m*b
发帖数: 1421 | 2 强调重要的工作、发现和结果不就是比谁更能吹牛谁的背景更牛吗
还不如看IF呢
至少IF这东西更客观一点儿
Journal
the
They
where
【在 G*****h 的大作中提到】
: NSF、NCI 等也准备修改简历的格式，强调重要的工作、发现和结果之类的。链接：
: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/call-to-aband
: Title: In 'Insurrection,' Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal
: Impact Factors
: More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the
: world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how
: often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual's work. They
: say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where
: the studies are published.
: Journal impact factors, calculated by the company Thomson Reuters, were
| a********k
发帖数: 2273 | 3 在没有funding，没有position的生死攸关时刻，伟光正的scientist们显然要考虑自己
小圈子的利益。不能你一个小lab的人运气好就能上，我手下运气不好的牛人就上不了
。大部分工作重要不重要还不就是圈子里面几个人决定的？
【在 m*b 的大作中提到】
: 强调重要的工作、发现和结果不就是比谁更能吹牛谁的背景更牛吗
: 还不如看IF呢
: 至少IF这东西更客观一点儿
:
: Journal
: the
: They
: where
| a*********1
发帖数: 407 | 4 H-index 的意义也应该重新评估。 俺见到太多靠当第三第四作者搞到high H-index 的
人。 | l***d
发帖数: 1798 | 5 任何评价系统都有缺陷
同样IF
但是至少IF高的杂志，publish要求高，难度大，
比那些一般的杂志还是有影响力的
我想没有谁只会用if来评价一个人
但同时抛弃if，来评价也不现实和理智。
Journal
the
They
where
【在 G*****h 的大作中提到】
: NSF、NCI 等也准备修改简历的格式，强调重要的工作、发现和结果之类的。链接：
: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/call-to-aband
: Title: In 'Insurrection,' Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal
: Impact Factors
: More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the
: world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how
: often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual's work. They
: say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where
: the studies are published.
: Journal impact factors, calculated by the company Thomson Reuters, were
| w***a
发帖数: 4361 | 6 IF是杂志的impact，跟单篇文章的作者其实毛关系都没有。
我看还是拼H-idex好了。
【在 m*b 的大作中提到】
: 强调重要的工作、发现和结果不就是比谁更能吹牛谁的背景更牛吗
: 还不如看IF呢
: 至少IF这东西更客观一点儿
:
: Journal
: the
: They
: where
| w***a
发帖数: 4361 | 7 嗯，非一作和通讯作者不算数。
【在 a*********1 的大作中提到】
: H-index 的意义也应该重新评估。 俺见到太多靠当第三第四作者搞到high H-index 的
: 人。
| F*Q
发帖数: 3259 | 8 归根结底还是所谓的 peer reviewing 的问题。工业界如果也搞 peer review, 那谁都
别想活了。
Journal
the
They
where
【在 G*****h 的大作中提到】
: NSF、NCI 等也准备修改简历的格式，强调重要的工作、发现和结果之类的。链接：
: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/call-to-aband
: Title: In 'Insurrection,' Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal
: Impact Factors
: More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the
: world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how
: often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual's work. They
: say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where
: the studies are published.
: Journal impact factors, calculated by the company Thomson Reuters, were
| m*****u
发帖数: 15526 | 9 IF至少给不太了解这个领域的人有一个较客观的学术评价标准。否则，还能看什么 |
|
