Absolutely. I really cannot understand this business of impact factors,
which does not seem to have much to do with anything, including impact.
For example, a few years ago I wrote a paper on an ecological modelling
problem with a student, and I suggested that we submit it to Ecological
Modelling. He objected that it has a low impact factor. I didn't know this,
but I pointed out to him that the people in our field, the ones who would
actually want to read the paper, were ecological modellers and read
Ecological Modelling. There obviously aren't enough of us in this
sub-discipline to generate a high impact factor, but if you have a journal
that reaches your target audience, isn't that what matters?
I once coauthored a paper in a journal that probably sets a record for low
impact factor, if in fact it has any at all - Alan Longhurst and William
Silvert. 1985. A management model for the Great Bustard in Iberia. Bustard
Studies 2:57-72. In fact, I suspect that if every Iberian Bustard in the
world read the paper, it still would not have an impact factor. But I'll bet
that more of the people who actually work on the Bustard conservation issue
read that paper than would have if it appeared in Science or Nature.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Wilson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: quinta-feira, 29 de Outubro de 2009 13:02
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Journal impact factor
i think that scientists, administrators, tenure and promotion committees,
students, editors, journals, etc. should focus less on journal impact
factors and more on the production of quality, interesting, and useful
science.
