So I am trying to work out what motivates different academics to publish in different places.

Would you agree that ONE signficant part of this is how good the impact factor is of where they publish?

If NO then what does your experience of publishing tell why it is not important?

If YES then what would you suggest as a reformative or even revolutionary alternative to the impact factor?

Views: 131

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Revolutionary alternatives? I can't think of any. If you want to learn more about the state of the art I suggest a look at the work of Loet Leydesdorff:http://www.leydesdorff.net

Yes, people publish in journals because of Impact Factor, journal reputation, etc. I know librarians who argue that these proxy measures are often complete garbage.

My revolutionary alternative is this: read the articles themselves. Get back to content. The problem with Impact Factors is that they turn the qualitative information and work in publications into numbers. This works well for people who just want to speed up the process and sift through massive amounts of information (ie job search committees who don't have time to actually read what applicants write), but this path doesn't bode well for the whole point of writing and research, IMO.

Thanks John. I found some interesting software from ur link here http://www.leydesdorff.net/software.htm that will be useful.

Ryan: Okidoki, so (1) Do you think there is any mileage in developing impact factors with more diverse sets of measurements? Lets say in relation to OAC Press experimenting with it? such as the stuff mentioned here http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ . I mention this seriously as many people are driven by some form of impact factoring particularly as it feeds into whether they get a job as you say, so perhaps in the short term something a little more diverse might be good to enable a publishing platform to not be rejected based on such concerns? OR (2) think more outside the box as you suggest, but how then do I sift through the megatonnes of articles? If I watch myself I do this via what other people, lecturers in particular have suggested as well as simply googling for stuff, and reading favourite journals. So lets say  in relation to OAC Press what would this mean. I guess I imagine better search capabilities for publication databases (can do), more metatagging (can do), organise content as answer to questions plus include positive reader feedback to push those that best answer certain question to appear more prominently (can do), have a diverse editorial board (can do), organise content via place and subject matter (can do). Thoughts? Or too technical based and not radical enough?

*(can do) These are just some initial things I have checked out that I could implement on the OAC once passing it by everyone. The OAC doesnt have too much content, nor only a little, so I have been thinking its in a good position to be used as a source of content to experiment or develop some of these ideas.

Why were impact factors developed? What problem was this system supposed to solve? What is wrong about the way that the system currently operates? Suppose,I propose, that we approached these issues as the sort of questions that DesignX attempts to address. What is DesignX? Here is a brief explanation by one of its leading exponents Don Norman.

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/designx_a_future_pa.html
To hear Norman talking about DesignX see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj96KyC9zdI

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Translate

OAC Press

@OpenAnthCoop

Events

© 2017   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service