Long posting, but very interesting. It has long been stated, only half in
jest, that the way to get lots of citations is to publish something wrong so
that everyone writes to rebut it.
It is actually an interesting challenge, since it has to be good enough to
get past the reviewers but bad enough to attract lots of criticism.
By the way, some colleagues of mine just scored a real scoop. They published
basically the same paper in both Science and Nature simultaneously! Talk
about impact factors. I really gasped when I saw this.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]>
To: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: sexta-feira, 30 de Outubro de 2009 15:41
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Journal impact factor
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?
