Currently with respect to the quality of journals the IMPACT FACTOR calculated by THOMSON REUTERS is the officially accepted one and all others are not considered especially in the government sector and in recognized universities.
What SJIF stands for? I guess something IMPACT FACTOR. You said What are the problems with the currently accepted metric provided by THOMSON REUTERS? You mentioned it is the officially accepted and well reputed, so is there any point to have new metrics. Publications in RG are presented by members and therefore are unofficials. They can be wrong sometimes I believe making parallel metrics won't do any good, unless a better and more realistic metric is discovered/invented.
SJIF is treated as Misleading Metrics! ResearchGate should not endorse it!
http://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/misleading-metrics/
http://www.sjifactor.inno-space.net/
What SJIF stands for? I guess something IMPACT FACTOR. You said What are the problems with the currently accepted metric provided by THOMSON REUTERS? You mentioned it is the officially accepted and well reputed, so is there any point to have new metrics. Publications in RG are presented by members and therefore are unofficials. They can be wrong sometimes I believe making parallel metrics won't do any good, unless a better and more realistic metric is discovered/invented.
I agree with M.Azizul. The quality of research may not be reflected by the journal in which it is published. In developing countries like India many of us shy away from publishing into some quality journals because of their publication fee or the writing and editing charges, which may not be affordable for several reasons. Many of these metrics are indirect measures. Its better that these agencies are minimal in number.
Dear @Mahmoud, I have explained what SJIF stands for. It is about a sort of misleading metrics.
I personally believe that there should a metric based on citations achieved by the article and not the impact factor of journal. I am working on it
Mahmoud Omid wrote a phrase "... I believe making parallel metrics won't do any good, unless a better and more realistic metric is discovered/invented".
I would like to offer to your attention one of such "more realistic metric" in IT field. But first of all, I want to share some of my thoughts. Let's assume that you would to hear and see a famous singer (artist, musician, ... ). There are two programs on TV: The first program devoted to the actual performance (as a PRODUCT) and the second program devoted to preparing for performance (as a PROCESS). In my view, most people (maybe 999 of 1000) would be interested to watch the first program as a PRODUCT. One can give many other examples from other areas of life where we would be interested to watch (use) the PRODUCT (in order to solve our problems) than to know about the PROCESS of creating the PRODUCT. Let's now consider a PAPER in IT field where are presented an algorithm (exact or approximation) of solving a problem. I have a question immediately arises: Can I use this algorithm now to solve my problem as an ordinary user? Usually the vast number of papers does not provide such an opportunity. As to me, in such cases, I shall be more interested to develop my own algorithm to solve my problem, that is, I will not be interested to study in detail the author's algorithm. Thus, I will be interested to know only about problem description of paper and will not be interested to read the full paper. In my understaning, any paper in IT field must be CONVERTED TO A FUNCTIONAL SITE to be accepted for any people (sientists, reseachers, practitioners, and ordinary users) to use this algorithm from a server.
My proposal is the following: In the 21st century a "better and more realistic metric" should become USER STATISTICS of application a FUNCTIONAL SITE in the Internet. I want to conclude: If you belive that you presented a very effective algorithm then please convert this algorithm to a functional site, otherwise there will always be people who will be able to solve this problem for you (will be developed a new more effective algorithm and functional site for this algorithm).
Dear Khan
Do you not like your hard earned research results are freely available to the world immediately. Instead the publisher earns revenue by charging your paper. Will this be OK with you. OPEN ACCESS in my opinion if used ethically is the best form of transmitting research results.
I think, RG should consider the impact factor given by THOMSON REUTERS only as it is the most authentic source to rank the journals, also, it is considered by most of the authority.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor