I think that all of these metrics are just making a mockery out of the system.
You know what, my perspective on evaluating publication has changed so drastically its amazing. Here is my philosophy: If someone is doing something and publishing it, they are being productive. Some folks are only interested in small-time research, and frankly these things are important. Other folks are only interested in major studies, these are important too. Some people are going to focus on local stuff, others global, others on stuff in another region or country. ITS ALL IMPORTANT, from the minor note to the major monograph. Is a note = to a monograph? No Is a paper in herp review = to a paper in Nature? No. However, if I have a note that has been cited a dozen times and you have a Nature article that has not been cited once.....what does it mean? It means both people thought it was important enough to address something and put it out there so others know about it. THat is our job. Anyone wants to poo poo what another person is doing, maybe they should first consider that the vast majority of us either lack the health, capacity, or resources to land in Nature and others among us are not sufficiently observant nor possess a grasp of the literature that is of sufficient scope to recognize observations worthy of pubication as an observation. So what? Each has their strenghts and weaknesses. Each of should do their best to contribute, even if that means one note every 10 years and nothing else. You still contributed, and no one has any business mocking or strutting around Those who do, succeed. Those who don't, don't. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:49 PM, David Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > While perusing an abstract in "Nature this week" , > > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7547/full/520266d.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20150416 > > I found a button to click called "Article Metrics". Once clicked, I found > it had three different metrics: 1. citations (zero as the article is brand > new, but likely to be frequent in the future), an alimetric score > apparently based on 9 tweets and one reddit, and a map of Twitter > "demographics" (n = 5). The alimetric score " is calculated based on two > main sources of online attention: social media and mainstream news media". > > Citations have their problems as a growing literature documents, but > turning over judgement of quality to Twitter and Reddit suggests Nature is > pandering to the standards society uses to judge the Kardasians, Miley > Cyrus and Prince Harry in Las Vegas. > > And we want Congress and the public to take science seriously? > > David Duffy > > -- > David Duffy > 戴大偉 (Dài Dàwěi) > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit > Botany > University of Hawaii > 3190 Maile Way > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA > 1-808-956-8218 > -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Environmental Studies Program Green Mountain College Poultney, Vermont Link to online CV and portfolio : https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 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! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle 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.
