A manifesto – altmetrics.org. Home. La revue qui se pensait bonne | La Vraie Vie de Laboratoire. Gérer une revue scientifique n’est pas une sinécure. Il faut traiter les articles venus de toutes parts, trouver des relecteurs, les relancer sans cesse parce qu’ils ne respectent pas leurs délais, faire face à des auteurs mécontents du rejet de leur formidable prose, maîtriser les sous-traitants indiens ou thaïs chargés de la mise en page pendant que les profits entrent dans les caisses de l’éditeur. Mais dans la vraie vie de laboratoire, gérer une revue c’est aussi s’assurer de son prestige, de sa reconnaissance et pour cela, surveiller un nombre magique, l’IF. Notre histoire débute par une chaude journée de l’été commençant. Comme chaque année à cette époque, le rédacteur en chef de l’International Journal of Rump steak Butchery était nerveux : il attendait les résultats produits par la Society for Impartial Information, et tout particulièrement son facteur de rayonnement ou Influence Factor, parce que cela faisait tellement plus chic écrit en anglais.
Like this: J'aime chargement… Article vs Journal Impact – Perspective from PLOS ONE Editorial Director Damian Pattinson – ScienceOpen Blog. Earlier this summer, I skyped with Damian Pattinson, the Editorial Director of PLOS ONE, about the Impact Factor , its widespread misuse and how, thankfully, Altmetrics now offer a better way forward. Q. The PLOS ONE Impact Factor has decreased for a few years in a row. Is this to be expected given its ranking as the world’s largest journal and remit to publish all good science regardless of impact? A. I don’t think the Impact Factor is a very good measure of anything, but clearly it is particularly meaningless for a journal that deliberately eschews evaluation of impact in its publications decisions. Q. A. Q. A. Q. It seems that the use of the IF is far from discreet since it is a prime marketing tool for many organizations, although not at PLOS which doesn’t list the IF on any of its websites (kudos).
A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Did PLOS predict the level to which the field has taken off and the amount of competition within it or is the organization pleasantly surprised? A. Q. A. Open Science Journal Club. I do! The obvious follow-up question is then: why are so many scientists disengaged from this discussion? In most fields, scientists use a mix of preprint servers (say, arxiv.org), conferences, and discussions with colleagues to learn about new results and to present their own. Where a preprint actually winds up in print is entirely secondary, as nobody would go to the library (or to a journal's website) to check it out. In fact, most scientists start using the results from a paper right when it appears as a preprint (i.e. much earlier than the peer-reviewed version appears), and usually have little difficulty validating the results themselves.
It couldn't be otherwise: the formal process of peer review can take several months to complete, and most scientists can't afford to be months behind the front line. The bottom line is that peer review and research evaluation are done by the scientists, not *for* the scientists.