Here's a biologist challenging the oft-heard claim that if you're an academic, not publishing your work in journals with a high "impact factor" is bad for your career. It would be nice to get some solid evidence one or way or the other. How would you separate correlation from causation? Maybe someone has already tried.
14 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 7 previous comments
- There is still a relevance to publishing in high-impact publications, which is, how many people will be more likely to read it simply because it is in there and they subscribe to it? Or at least they look at the table of contents from time to time?Feb 5, 2012
- Sadly tenured staff are expected to publish in recognised peer reviewed journals.
Example, at CSIRO one gets to csof level 7 much quicker if one can publish in Nature, than say if one has umpteen non-peer-reviewed publications on a blog.Feb 5, 2012
- It would seem scientists (of all people) would recognize the illogical aspect of the model that says there are only certain outlets that bestow legitimacy to an article written by a scientist. If science is a peer-reviewed community, then let the community review an article and reject or accept it. They (the reviewers) don't have to "belong" to a particular outlet (e.g. Nature). Who selects them? Why not an open access journal?
<http://occupypublishing.blogspot.com/2012/02/guidelines-for-arxiv-review.html>Feb 5, 2012
- : Did you intend to put a comma after 'Sadly'? It seems that either way works. :)
I think that we are on the threshold of something important, and, to the great benefit of science and mathematics. If we do it right. To build on what is saying let me propose this:
The only two criteria that a result must meet are
1. It must be correct
2. It must be new
I think that most scholars (maybe all) will agree that these two must be included on any list of what is considered 'publishable'
The new model, I believe will give us a much better chance of ensuring both, as with many eyes all bugs are shallow (so the saying goes..).
In my view a third criteria, which is usually imposed by editors of journals, is no longer - should be no longer - imposed. Namely that the work be 'important'. Such requirements are a vestige, I think, of the old paper based publishing model. When only so many new and correct results could be included in a given publication, somebody, usually eminent members of the discipline had to decide what was more important. That is no longer true. Indeed, although I am most definitely not an eminent member of any discipline, I really don't see how the ones who are made such decisions. Also, I think that some feared that finding gems would be difficult if the number of plain rocks were allowed to grow too large. With effective digital search, that problem also no longer exists.
What's more, I wonder if, sometimes, there are results which went unpublished, which would have proven very helpful in research years later.
I know that my proposal leaves unsolved the problem of how to give administrators meaningful numbers when deciding who to hire or promote. Personally, I don't know that we should be in the habit of doing the work of people who get paid a lot more than we, but I understand why this is a concern. Here is my suggestion. Administrators should listen to the members of the current department. I might want to hire someone who, at least now, is not considered an accomplished mathematician, but who is someone I could collaborate well with. I don't think that this is much different than the current system, in any event.Feb 5, 2012
- Established journals editors (I believe) also try to address, or minimise plagiarism, by ensuring there is adequate and appropriate citing, and referencing. If we resort to alternative Open Access publishing I believe we have to address that matter too. For otherwise, perhaps it's my imagination, but the clamour, the noise would become distracting.
IOW, any form of journaling has to encourage and foster the 'standing on top of giants' paradigm. Each generation making contributions to previous generations. Each author acknowledging and recognising their peers works that led to their own inspiration / improvements etc. The main reason why perpetual copyrights and IP is a drag on innovation in fact. The locking up of IP from others improving on it.
Naturally there will be some quite novel discoveries, theories, solutions but they will only be the more special, more credible if there was excellent crediting/ referencing and citing built into the whole journaling culture and process.
And yes I meant "Sadly,...". As you can see I edit my own entries and could very well benefit from good editorial services :)Feb 5, 2012
- Regardless of whether or not the kind of publishing someone has managed to do, it's in everyone's best interest to only support schools and funding programs that look for the quality of the work, rather than where it's published.Feb 5, 2012