Taking the JIF as the measure of scientific quality has been intensely criticized, and there is a lively and ongoing debate about how the JIF compromises academia in general. Basically, the JIF is defined as the year’s average number of citations per paper published in a specific journal during the preceding 2 years. Evaluating the quality of a manuscript is a complex undertaking, but in practice has been increasingly linked to the journal impact factor (JIF, see Nature Editorial on “Not-so- deep impact”). Besides the total number of publications, their quality is a decisive prerequisite for academic success. Decisions about faculty positions, contracts, salaries or grant applications depend on a scientist’s publication record. In a time in which money is the dominating remunerative incentive for guiding behavior on the labor market, journal publications have assumed the role of the new “currency” for scientists.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |