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