Scientific Impact Measures Compared
A new study suggests that the venerated journal impact factor (JIF) may not provide a consensus view of “scientific impact.”
A new study suggests that the venerated journal impact factor (JIF) may not provide a consensus view of “scientific impact.”
Indexing of proceedings papers, errors in conversion, draw ire from bibliometrics community. Some question its effect on journal Impact Factors.
Publisher asks for submission stop while searching for new editor-in-chief.
Should scientists receive only partial credit for coauthored papers?
The novel is about novelty. Self-publishing is just the latest option for authors. Some argue that it’s reinventing literature.
Wikipedia is a reference that is accurate but incomplete. How does it fare as a drug resource? A recent study finds an interesting trend.
What happens when parody is prescient? It becomes a painful reminder of things gone awry. Happy Friday!
Are the humanists trying too hard to be like scientists?
On the eve of the Inauguration of Barack Obama, let’s pause and remember the hero today is set aside for.
A journal begins requiring authors to submit peer-reviewed pages to Wikipedia. Is this a great idea?
The Research Assessment Exercise is slow and expensive. Abandoning peer-review for quantitative assessment may lead to excessive gaming and corrupt the indicators of quality.
The abuse of editorial power and favoritism leads to a national scandal in France.
Scholarly publishers risk following the newspaper industry if they don’t value peer-review.
Sure, the news is a commodity now, but perhaps losing the data is what triggered the beginning of the end for newspapers.
Improving transparency and accountability in biomedical publishing has turned authorship into a legal system.