"Researchers are used to being evaluated based on indices like the impact factors of the scientific journals in which they publish papers and their number of citations. A team of 14 natural scientists from nine countries are now rebelling against this practice, arguing that obsessive use of indices is damaging the quality of science."
cited from :
https://m.phys.org/news/2020-02-scientists-reform-indices-science-journals.html
So, please give your comments about it.
Best regards, and thank you very much.
Typically in my country were adapted that system, but in fact doesn't.
"Our message is quite clear: Academics should stop worrying too much about indices. Instead, we should work more on the scholarship and the quality of research," says Professor Colin Chapman from the Department of Anthropology at the George Washington University in Washington.
"The exaggerated reliance on indices is taking attention away from the quality of the science. The system works just fine for experienced researchers like Colin Chapman and myself, but younger researchers and their careers are suffering because of the way indices are used today," adds Professor Nils Chr. Stenseth at the University of Oslo.
I agree with them....
Dear Nazaruddin Sinaga ,
I agree that our main focus should be on coming up with a research idea that is meaningful to both scientific community and society. Then ensure that the idea is receiving funding and, if successful, executed at a high quality level. The findings need to be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals providing access to raw data via supplementary information as well as to target communities via workshops. In order to maximise the impact and benefits, the findings should be also shared in platforms such as relevant interest groups in Facebook, in LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Academia to name but a few.
If we do all that the rest will take care of itself.
Check out Elsevier's ResearcherAcademy ( https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/) for modules on:
1. Research preparation
2. Writing for research
3. Publication
4. Navigating peer review and
5. Communicating your research.
All the best, Rob.
For every organization I strongly believed there is always a measure of performance by which individuals are measured. Rather than an outright removal of impact factor or H-index it should rather be regulated, transparent and devoid of monopoly....There should be a consensus metric by which all research output is measured rather than the fragmentation from different sources...
Dear Robert Thomas Bachmann and Olusegun Abayomi Olalere ,
I agree with you. That's why I try to make a new international organization of lecturers and researchers. We have been discussing it. I hope we can make the situation better. If you have not joined the discussion, please check it out:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_agree_if_we_create_an_international_organization_of_university_lecturers#view=5e4c95aff0fb62753574e088
Thank you very much.
Best wishes.
Of course, these indicators do not characterize the quality of publications, but only the quantity. Nevertheless, most of the scientists whom I respect have very high personal rates, although scientific administrators are also in this group ... As for journals, these indicators quite adequately describe reality qualitatively, but in individual cases these may not work, this is not an absolute characteristic. These indicators are imperfect. But there is nothing else yet.
Quality research should be prioritized in research world. Although there should also be a way to evaluate research works done by scientists. In my observation, H-index and Journal impact factor are not really used well to ascertain the quality of a paper.
Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov and Viola A Nwachukwu Nicholas-Okpara ,
Thank you so much for your comment. So, what should we do to change it all?
I think these 14 natural scientists from nine countries have some real concerns. To me, the exact abilities of individual scientist may be measured with respect to first author. Suppose a professor have 500 manuscripts, the question is: In how many papers he/she is the first author?
In many cases you may observe Professors names or Journal names as famous trade Marks acceptable or sell-able through blind eyes.
@Nazaruddin Sinaga, I want to agree with Vadim and Muhammad Ali's points of view as regards imperfection on individual scientist's quality paper characterisation and first authorship grading respectfully.
However this calls for serious action for appropriate international individual scientist rating. I do not know how possible this call will be.
Thank you very much, dear Muhammad Ali, P. Contreras, and Viola A Nwachukwu Nicholas-Okpara, for your reply.
I agree with you. That's why I try to make a new international organization of lecturers and researchers. We have been discussing it. I hope we can make the situation better. If you have not joined the discussion, please check it out:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_agree_if_we_create_an_international_organization_of_university_lecturers#view=5e4c95aff0fb62753574e088
Thank you very much.
Best wishes.
Presentation Journal Impact Factors, Researcher h-index, How to improve r...
Dear Emad Kamil Hussein ,
Thank you for your reply and sharing....
Publication in a journal having an impact factor should not be a prerequisite right now for appointment or promotion for all countries.
Dear Harasit Kumar Paul and Vishnu Kumar Gupta ,
Thank you very much for your comments.
Obviously the H-index and impact factor indicates the activity of a scientist as well as recognition of a good work.....yes its true that only based on this profile we should not evaluate a scientist
Thanks dear Mrityunjoy Acharjee for your reply. I agree with you. It can not be used to evaluate scientists as a whole.
Dear scholars, please give your reply.
Thank you very much.
Best Regards.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor