Today everyone rates 'individual' quality of research in terms of Impact Factor that too only Thomson Reuters. Research that is not published in any journal without IF is not considered 'effective' and 'significant'. Advanced research based on 'sophisticated instrumentation' is at high ranking than the 'basic research' involving little instrumentation. For example floristic and conservation research in 90% of the cases (especially in forest bounded territories around the world) demand long-term observations and involve very strenuous, challenging and life risk factors, but ended up in many cases with 1-2 publications in national level journals that may not fall in TR fold. However the documented data and discoveries therein form the basis for taking up advanced research by other scientists.
Although attempts were made to fill the gaps at national level in many developing countries even the national agencies are not recognizing the national ratings. For example in India, NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences) is doing wonderful job in rating national and international Journals. This rating however is not popular or considered by higher education departments at national and state level.
I feel there is need to develop a precise mechanism in looking at research especially that focus on local and regional issues which may not attract international attention. Ultimately the objective of research is contributing something to humanity at local/regional/national or global level.
Ravi -
I had not heard of the NAAS ratings, but I expect them to be better than the deeply flawed impact factors we usually see. Well, at least I consider that they are not generally used in proper context. Also, I have to think that some advances presented in conference proceedings, and some useful books are being ignored by the present prevailing system. There have been multiple threads on ResearchGate on which people have registered objections regarding use of the Reuters system. Perhaps no rating system at all should be used. Otherwise, any ratings may tend to be used improperly, and/or misunderstood. Certainly regional impacts you are considering would not be expected to be reflected well at this time without a different system, perhaps such as NAAS. But perhaps it would be best to have no system at all. As a statistician, I feel statistics are valuable, but only when they are well-defined and not misleading and/or easily misused and/or misunderstood.
Cheers - Jim
James,
As you opined rating systems have lot of flaws. NAAS basically not a regional evaluation. Its transparent and quantifiable mechanism that avoids arbitrariness in assessment. Accordingly, the Academy initiated a process of rating/scoring of scientific research journals (all Indian national and international journals covered by TR) with the primary objective to bring uniformity for its own organisation.
While impact factor is flawed, a simple count of citations is probably a much better reflection of the success of a publication.
Methodology based with application of recent tools to define processes are circulating much than theory and philosophy based researches. What lead to where is a matter to be rethinking by the community.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor