Bill, Using impact ratings for ranking the importance of research is kind of like looking in a laboratory and discovering that forceps are used more than any other tool in the lab. So, we cancel the contracts on the electron microscope, atomic absorbition spec, HPLC, freezers, etc. because they simply are not used as often as are forceps, therefore they are not as important as forceps. In fact, we are investing all of our money and efforts in buying and retaining forceps, pipets and boots because these are the most frequently used items in the lab.
Impact factors were never meant for the purpose they are currently used. ALL THEY ARE IS A LIBRARIAN'S TOOL!!!! They were ONE of the tools used by librarians to choose journals for their collections. Other tools included asking the faculty, tracking the number of times the journal was removed from the shelf (via re-shelving tabulation), to name a few! IF's are ONE of many tools used to determine the breadth of usership by a particular journal. This is important to librarians because they want to use limited resources in the most equitable manner possible. So, they choose non-specialist journals based on IF and then ask the faculty if there are any specialty journals that they should carry. At least it originally functioned this way!!! Today, with the internet and many open-access journals, impact factors are becoming of less use to librarians. Unfortunately, those of us who are looking for promotion, tenure, or jobs are forced to consider impact factor in their research because others will evaluate us at least partly in this regard. Frankly, if you are an ecological modeler and you have not published in "Ecological Modeling" it should raise questions as to why! The bulk of a herpetologist's papers should appear in herpetology journals, an ichthyologist's papers should be in ichthyology journals, modelers in modeling journals. Why? Because the peer review on a paper in ecological modeling will get a more critical review by specialists, whereas a more generalized journal will not have the expertise to know who to select for reviews! For example, if I submit a paper with fuzzy sets in to Ecological Modeling, the editors and reviewers will want details on how the sets were formed. However, if you submit the same paper to a more generalized journal, they are going to ask that these details be left out because of page space or other issues. When I select a journal to publish in, the first thing I look at is the subject of my paper. Then, I look at the journals that publish those kinds of papers. IF I think my paper is especially important or has a wide impact, I might submit it to a more general journal. However, you must consider the regionality, subject matter, and novelty of what you are trying to publish. If your paper was a survey of beetles on a small forest preserve in west Texas, this goes either to the Texas Journal of Science, or the Coleopterists Bulletin (not sure the latter would publish it or not). There is also an issue of timeliness. Sometimes, we aren't so concerned with where it gets published as that it gets out fast because of its immediate impact or because someone else is scooping us. All are considerations. In other words, the goal is to have people who will use your research see it, so they can use it. No one in China is likely to care about the beetles of a west Texas forest preserve. No one in Alabama likely does either, and truthfully, it is probably of more interest to other biologists in the region than it is to other Coleopterists in general. So, if it were me I'ld send it to TJS. This does not traslate to good or bad, important or non-important. These things are all relative to who is actually evaluating the substance. Unfortunately, we are currently turning science into some kind of a game show where findings are evaluated not on so much on their expansion of knowledge, as on how bigger than life the findings are made. Look at all of the papers that are being faked and then later retracted in modern times. Of course these things happened in the past (piltdown man for example), but this seems more extreme and is clearly driven by the competition to get into big journals and get cited. The major reason citation ratings should not be used to evaluate anything in science is that your paper might just be cited do to how wrong, ill advised, or pathetically poorly we thought out the study, or how we used inappropriate methodology, or missed key papers! IS this something to be proud of? Is hiring, promoting, or granting tenure based on a widely cited piece of tripe logical? This all comes out of the problem of evaluating faculty and comparing faculty in one field who publish a lot compared to those in other fields that publish little. The answer should have been, you can't! You compare faculty in literature to other faculty in literature, and if one seems to be the top lit faculty at your school, and you want to know how that individual compares at to faculty at other or more famous insitutions, then send the portfolio out to one of these institutions and ask for an external evaluation! However, its easier to simply pick up an index that claims to relate quality and use its numbering system of which inclusion in their sample has no connection with much other than the whim of the institution. Such is our current system. If a system is evaluating journal and research quality, then should not the data sets used include data points selected based on measures of quality? Now consider that the most widely used Impact Factor database currently selects for inclusion journals from the third world prior to first world journals. Another will not include journals unless the articles are published in xml! And, another can only access those that appear online and grant access to Google Scholar. None of this makes any sense from a "quality" standpoint. These may be good business decisions for the publishers, for profit agencies, or not-for-profits trying to provide an alternative mechanism to corporate entities. However, whether or not they relate quality of science is in my opinion subject to question. Having said that, I'm watching my personal h-score and comparing it to others that graduated around the same time because I know others are watching it. Furthermore, as managing editor, I manage our journal's h-score and continually petition Scopus, ISI, and other indexes to keep us or include us because I know that perception often outweighs performance! :) IF you read this far, I admire you for actually reading this looooooong diatribe! On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
