Categories: Other Sciences

Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics

Paula Stephan, Reinhilde Veugelers, Jian Wang

DOI: 10.1038/544411a

Journal-article published April 2017 in Nature volume 544 issue 7651 on page 411-412
© Springer Nature

Keywords: #impact factor  #science  #review  #journal  #peer-review  #reviewer  Edit keywords

4 2 3.8 Posted: 07.Jul.2017
Incognito 07.Jul.2017

An honest discussion about one of the most important and difficult problems in science and in academia. This problem needs to be solved sooner than later.

Ferdinand Wu 08.Jul.2017

Glad to have a discussion which questions journal impact factors (JIFs) and citation counts. I have met several distinguished scholars who promised to submit no more research results to journals of this kind. Is it a silent protest or is personal emotion involved? Apparently, academic authorities seem to be exaggeratedly overrated by the help of JIFs; and academic freedom is dying. What leads to this? JIFs is never an iceberg itself. I hope this discussion is a start not end.

credible bh 21.Jul.2018

telestaff not working telestaff mobile site telestaff password change telestaff login help telestaff jobs telestaff support telestaff

wegmasn ok 27.Oct.2018

Mywegmansconnect is the official online employee portal of the Wegmans ... employees are required to have a Mywegmansconnect account to connect with ... Mywegmansconnect - Official Login Portal

Ferdinand Wu 09.Jul.2017

A critical piece of pizzle is left untouched. What's between authors and readers? It can be a process or medium. Bibliometrics as JIFs are simply products of this swirl; and if the real culprit is continuously neglected, we can only be a part of this game. Same things in the news industry, sensational contents are always more attractive than truethful/neutral reports. Now the world is fighting against fake news by examining news sources and readers!? We're too much into this game and lost focus.

Incognito 10.Jul.2017

Although journal impact factors are not perfect, I believe they correlate with a researcher's ability to pull off a research project. I also don't think being risk-averse is a necessarily a bad thing in research. Being risk-averse means research grants are spent cautiously. Of course scientists should at times challenge the consensus but the trick is to find a good balance between bold and risk-averse hypotheses.

Back to Top