impact factor

Top 10 chemistry journals and their impact factors for 2012

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

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.

Public discussion of problematic studies increases the number of corrective actions. True?

Several online forums developed over the last years to foster open discussion of peer-reviewed scientific publications, PeerPub and PeerJ are two of them. The integrity of data is central to the discussion – assuming that discussed openly problems with data will helo to correct the scientific record.

But is this assumption justified?

Paul S. Brookes, a researcher at the University of Rochester in the United States, wanted to find out. He created a blog as a platform for people to submit questionable data along with the respective publications to him to be published and discussed in an open forum. (more…)

Nikolaus Kriegeskorte: How to rebuild peer review [VIDEO]

Peer Review Watch would like to say thank you to all the panelists, audience members and those who got involved on Twitter last night. It was the excellent level of participation that made the debate a success.

If you attended the debate or watched it live on our Google Hangouts On-Air stream, you will remember panelist Nikolaus Kriegeskorte erasing peer review and reconstructing science publishing before our eyes on the white board.

BkPI4h7IgAARrCH

(more…)

LiveBlog: Scientific publishing – the past, present and future of the scientific journal

Can’t get enough of peer-review? You’re in the right place!

Peer Review Watch will be LiveBlogging a special seminar on “Scientific Publishing – the past, present and future of the scientific journal” at Imperial College London at 6pm today.

This event is organised by the Society of Spanish Researchers in the United Kingdom, and promises to be an exciting evening of peer-review themed discussion, as the organisers have deliberately chosen three speakers with opposing views on the issues of pay-walls, anonymity and impact factors.

Follow the action on twitter with #SRUKevents and get involved!

If you would like to attend this event, tickets are free and are still available here.

While you’re on EventBrite, make sure you register for our own upcoming event “Peer-review is broken, how do we fix it?” to be held at City University London on April 2nd at 6pm!

Check out the LiveBlog here!

Coveritlive

Guest Post: Reviewing the Peer Review System

This is a cross post from  Dalmeet Singh Chawla (@DalmeetS) originally published on I,SCIENCE.

IMAGE SOURCE: AJ Cann on Flickr

IMAGE SOURCE: AJ Cann on Flickr

On 4 October 2013, Science published a special issue on communication in science containing the ‘open access sting article’ that went on to cause huge controversy worldwide. The study consisted of John Bohannon deliberately submitting articles with mistakes to various open access journals. Out of the 304 journals the paper was submitted (more…)

5a28a522712e8b0219e4edf66495813f

Live Blogging a Panel Discussion: In Science we trust. Do we?

On March 15th the University of Cambridge held a panel discussion as part of their science festival: In science we trust – Traditional publihsing, open access, post-publication review. Panelists were:

Liveblog from ‘In Science We Trust?’

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?

(more…)