Perhaps one of the most important aspects of Publish or Perish is that it serves to remind us that ISI only offers a measurement of productivity--it does not define it.
This topic does bring up a derivative question that I have been kicking around in my own mind for a bit, and Zhiyun JIA's post has prompted me to ask it. As graduate students, we are all told to attempt to publish our research in top journals (as inferred from ISI rankings). But my feeling is that electronic submissions, the availability of online journals and the appearance of online archives has changed the rules a bit. My feeling is that good study will be read and cited, regardless of where it is published. Why not then publish in journals that are broadly accessible to the audiences most interested in the findings (which is not always other scientists exclusively, as agency folks and NGOs are occasionally interested in applied work)? Impact factors do not measure whether a study contributes to the effective conservation of an endangered species or helps shape policy, even though these "impacts" can serve as the motivation for initiating studies in the first place. Tom Rooney
