Often times, we are tasked to assess the quality of publications - eg in research grants, faculty promotions, etc. The conundrum is whether to consider the quality of the journal more significant or the researchers' records.
I just check how my work is helping in the scientific works of others! My happiness in not in IF or Hi index. The latter is, however, related to that
Both IF & H Index is not important, the content and quality of the paper is more important how that is related more to my work.
Researchers and research paper assessors need to understand that the 'replicability' of a research and its findings is the true measure of the fidelity, applicability and potential impact of a research work.
We need to start looking at strategies that assess the validity and honesty of research publications and allocate higher impact to those who are validated and really genuine.
However till then, I believe journal metrics like impact factor, h index and SJR are superior to individual author ranking based on the assumption that journal editorial teams rigorously assess and review submitted manuscript before acceptance and that the journal metrics are a reflection of the overall reputation of the journal.
I agree that it is less important to look at these statistics than the actual paper itself and its content. Some very well known authors in my field have published in very big journals and I look at it (the paper) and think it’s not very good and they got it accepted probably because that person/author has a good reputation…
Still, most of my colleagues place more importance on the IF of the journal.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism