The Effect of a Strong Data Archiving Policy on Journal Submissions (Part II)
We revisit our analysis of how adopting a strict data policy affects journal submissions and find that the effects depend a lot on Impact Factor trends
Reforming Research Assessment: A Tough Nut to Crack
Alison Mudditt looks at the recently released TOP Factor from the Center for Open Science, and the bigger picture of shifting the nature of research assessment.
Guest Post: Interesting Versus True? Measuring Transparency and Reproducibility of Biomedical Articles
Today’s guest post, by Anita Bandrowski and Martijn Roelandse, highlights some of the challenges – and opportunities – of evaluating the quality of research rather than its impact.
Journals Lose Citations to Preprint Servers
Why do authors continue to cite preprints years after they’ve been formally published?
Biological Science Societies Hope to Convince Authors to Stay in the Society Family
Hoping to woo authors away from commercial publishers, a group of biomedical science societies have launched a new alliance to promote the value of publishing in society journals.
Turning a Critical Eye on Reference Lists
Citations and the metrics around their use are an important part of evaluation and promotion of science and scientists and yet, little attention is paid to them in the peer review process. In this post, Angela Cochran makes a call to critically review reference lists and develop standards around what should and should not be included.
How to Manipulate a Citation Histogram
Citation indexes need to provide standardized citation histograms for editors and publishers. Without them, it is unlikely that they will be widely adopted. At worse, it will encourage the production of histograms that selectively highlight or obscure the data.
Optical Illusions — Shifting to Citation Distributions Only Makes It Easier to Fool the Eye
A proposal to substitute graphs of citation distributions for impact factors introduces many problems the authors don’t seem to have fully grasped, including unintentionally bolstering the importance of the very metric they seek to diminish.
Seven Things Every Researcher Should Know About Scholarly Publishing
After many and long conversations among colleagues within and beyond the Scholarly Kitchen
about what researchers need to know about scholarly publishing, Alice Meadows and Karin Wulf compiled a list of what we think to be the most urgent issues.
Can Scopus Deliver A Better Journal Impact Metric? Response from Scopus
An official response from Wim Meester, Head of Content Strategy for Scopus.
Can Scopus Deliver A Better Journal Impact Metric?
While offering real improvements over Thomson Reuters, Scopus may be suffering from serious data integrity issues and communication problems with its third-party publishers.
Citable Items: The Contested Impact Factor Denominator
Thomson Reuters’ approach of indexing by journal section and revising by demand leads to great inconsistencies across journals and inflates the Impact Factors of elite journals. The solution: remove the human element.
As PLOS ONE Shrinks, 2015 Impact Factor Expected to Rise
How a shrinking journals receives an artificial boost to its leading citation indicator.
PLOS ONE Shrinks by 11 Percent
Can PLOS exist without a mega-journal?
Revisiting: Splitting the Difference — Does an Editorial Mutiny at a Journal Do Much Long-term Damage?
The recent editorial board defection from an Elsevier journal brings up issues raised in Todd Carpenter’s 2013 post on editorial boycotts and declarations of independence. They generate a lot of heat, but what do the data say about the actual success of the new journals compared to the journals that were overthrown.