Every year Thomson Reuters publish a list of impact factors for journals to act as a rating system of how important a journal is; the higher the impact factor the more important the journal.
Many scientists and publishers dislike the impact factor but for the time being there seems little other option for rating journals.
One website, however, that uses a different method to rate journals is SCImago Journal and Country Rank. Here is a comparison between their choice of the top 10 chemistry journals and Thomson Reuters impact factors.
Graph produced using data wrapper.de (click on it to enlarge)
As you can see there is some discrepancy between the each organisations ratings, but Thomson Reuters does say that you should not rely alone on impact factor to determine how useful a journal is.
At our upcoming event ‘Peer review is broken, how do we fix it?’ we will have a panel, from each aspect of the peer review process, discussing the problems with peer review.
The event is on the 2nd April and you can find further details and sign up for the event here.
The following video, from BioMed Central, addresses one question – ‘Is peer review broken?’ – that we will be addressing in our upcoming debate on the 2nd April ‘Peer review is broken, how do we fix it?’
You can find the original posting of the video here.
During the ‘In Science We Trust?’ debate the hashtag #csf2014trust was used, here is a curation of some tweets from the debate:
After Mark Patterson’s intro
‘In Science We Trust?‘ was a talk held in Cambridge this weekend as a part of Cambridge Science Festival, which runs from the 10th to 23rd March this year.
The panel talked about, amongst other publishing issues, these 3 main topics:
1. Why some topics are more fashionable than others?
2. What is the place of the so-called negative results in science publishing?
3. What should be considered first: the Impact Factor of the journal in which a paper is published or the number of citations for this paper?
Professor Susan Bewley is a Consultant Obstetrician and Honorary Senior Lecturer at Kings College London. She has published many papers ad hence been through the peer review process many times, on both sides. Heres what she had to say on the subject:
What did the peer review process add to your work?