f*******o
发帖数: 150 | 1 Impacting our young
Much has been written about impact factors, how they are calculated, and what they do and do not
measure. Briefly, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor is calculated for each
journal as the number of citations per paper published in that journal in the prior 2 years. When
the 2-year impact factor was designed, it was intended to be an aid to librarians making decisions
about which journals to purchase so that they could get a rough sense of a journal's influence in
its field. In this context, the impact factor makes sense. Nonetheless, the use of the impact factor
to judge individual scientists, departments, and institutions is a remarkable case study in the law
of unintended consequences. Like so many well-intentioned interventions in social policy, ecology,
and medicine, reliance on the impact factor as part of the evaluation of candidates and programs
has caused myriad problems, although it has perhaps solved some.
Today, the impact factor is often used as a proxy for the prestige of the journal. This proxy is
convenient for those wishing to assess young scientists across fields, because it does not require
knowledge of the reputation of individual journals or specific expertise in all fields. In some
countries, it was hoped that the impact factor would provide a more objective metric for scientific
excellence than reliance on scientific pedigrees. For this reason, the impact factor has become a
formal part of the evaluation process for job candidates and promotions in many countries, with
both salutatory and pernicious consequences.
There are many reasons why reliance on the impact factor for the evaluation of individual scientists
makes little sense. Because the least important paper published in a journal shares the impact
factor with the most important papers in the same journal, the number of citations of a given
article often does not reflect the impact factor of the journal where it is published. However, our
major concern is not whether using the impact factor to evaluate individuals makes sense but its
negative consequences for our young scientists as they make decisions about how to do science,
publish their work, and apply for positions. It is our contention that overreliance on the impact
factor is a corrupting force on our young scientists (and also on more senior scientists) and that we
would be well-served to divest ourselves of its influence.
The scientific enterprise is about the creation and dissemination of new knowledge. In today's
world, where it is possible to post findings on the web, scientific journals add value by providing
peer review. At some journals, peer review consists primarily of asking whether the work was done
correctly, if appropriate controls and statistics are present, if the figures and text are clear, and
whether the arguments make logical sense. At other journals, peer review emphasizes the
potential significance and novelty of the work.
Not surprisingly, the journals with the highest impact factor (leaving aside the review journals) are
those that place the highest premium on perceived novelty and significance. This can distort
decisions on how to undertake a scientific project. Many, if not most, important scientific findings
come from serendipitous discovery. New knowledge is new precisely because it was unanticipated.
Consequently, it is hard to predict which projects are going to generate useful and informative
data that will add to our body of knowledge and which will generate that homerun finding. Today,
too many of our postdocs believe that getting a paper into a prestigious journal is more important
to their career than doing the science itself.
We have seen postdocs waste years submitting a paper to a high impact factor journal, having it be
rejected, and then, revising it down the prestige chain, costing them months and months of time
that would be better spent doing new science. Sadly, this process erodes their sense of
accomplishment. Instead of being satisfied by reviews saying that the work was well done and
clearly presented, they are disappointed by the impact factor of the journal in which it eventually is
published. Too many postdocs say that their favorite journals, where they find the papers that they
like to read and where they would choose to publish if they did not feel pressure to publish in high
impact factor journals, are off limits to them because of the evaluation system of their home
governmental review panels. The hypocrisy inherent in choosing a journal because of its impact
factor, rather than the science it publishes, undermines the ideals by which science should be
done. This contributes to disillusionment, causing some of our talented and creative young people
to leave science.
There are countries that give financial and other bounties to young scientists for publications in
high impact factor journals. We understand wanting to encourage young people to aspire to
international recognition for their work. However, placing too much emphasis on publication in
high impact factor journals is a recipe for disaster. At the extreme, it creates temptation to falsify
data. Even among the most scrupulous, it sends the message that the honest pursuit of the truth
in science is not sufficient for success.
Is there a solution? Minimally, we must forego using impact factors as a proxy for excellence and
replace them with in-depth analyses of the science produced by candidates for positions and
grants. This requires more time and effort from senior scientists and cooperation from
international communities, because not every country has the necessary expertise in all areas of
science. Already, a number of countries around the world solicit opinions internationally. We all
must be willing to participate in international reviews, because this is the only way that we can free
our young scientists from the tyranny of the impact factor. As a society of scientists, we must be
vigilant to ensure by all of our actions that our job is the pursuit of new knowledge and its
dissemination, not the pursuit of glory before truth.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21233.full | m********a
发帖数: 239 | 2 "There are countries that give financial and other bounties to young
scientists for publications in high impact factor journals."
"However, placing too much emphasis on publication in high impact factor
journals is a recipe for disaster." | w***x
发帖数: 265 | 3 我老板就是个典型。无论做什么目标都是science paper。。。中了邪似的。
做东西是为了pub而不是为了解决科学问题。。。
开始一个project的时候，老板每次最先想到的就是selling point。。。而不是意义，
可行性之类的
每次觉得project的科学意义欠缺和老板讨论，老板的回复都可以概括为“你做上
两年，把xxxxx做完，就是science paper”。。。。。。无语。。。。。。
有时候我想，如果我们做的这锅浑水真的上了cns，我就quit science。。。 | b*******n
发帖数: 8420 | 4 习惯了就好。也许当你真的发了CNS，成了温拿的时候，也许会更容易接受现实。
【在 w***x 的大作中提到】
: 我老板就是个典型。无论做什么目标都是science paper。。。中了邪似的。
: 做东西是为了pub而不是为了解决科学问题。。。
: 开始一个project的时候，老板每次最先想到的就是selling point。。。而不是意义，
: 可行性之类的
: 每次觉得project的科学意义欠缺和老板讨论，老板的回复都可以概括为“你做上
: 两年，把xxxxx做完，就是science paper”。。。。。。无语。。。。。。
: 有时候我想，如果我们做的这锅浑水真的上了cns，我就quit science。。。
| c********6
发帖数: 189 | 5 怎么跟我的老板那么像!
去年实验室一共发了五篇CNS子刊
可是他还是觉得不满意
只因为那五篇不是纯CNS
【在 w***x 的大作中提到】
: 我老板就是个典型。无论做什么目标都是science paper。。。中了邪似的。
: 做东西是为了pub而不是为了解决科学问题。。。
: 开始一个project的时候，老板每次最先想到的就是selling point。。。而不是意义，
: 可行性之类的
: 每次觉得project的科学意义欠缺和老板讨论，老板的回复都可以概括为“你做上
: 两年，把xxxxx做完，就是science paper”。。。。。。无语。。。。。。
: 有时候我想，如果我们做的这锅浑水真的上了cns，我就quit science。。。
| h********0
发帖数: 12056 | 6 科学因为有这样的人才会发展。
【在 w***x 的大作中提到】
: 我老板就是个典型。无论做什么目标都是science paper。。。中了邪似的。
: 做东西是为了pub而不是为了解决科学问题。。。
: 开始一个project的时候，老板每次最先想到的就是selling point。。。而不是意义，
: 可行性之类的
: 每次觉得project的科学意义欠缺和老板讨论，老板的回复都可以概括为“你做上
: 两年，把xxxxx做完，就是science paper”。。。。。。无语。。。。。。
: 有时候我想，如果我们做的这锅浑水真的上了cns，我就quit science。。。
| f**********e
发帖数: 1994 | 7 每次到有中國生物千老的 party 就能聽到以下的對話：
＂那個某某某最近做得不錯。＂
＂誒，他做了什麼？＂
＂我不知道他具體做了什麼，但是他剛剛出了一篇 science。＂
＂但是他到底做了什麼讓你覺得他做得不錯？＂
＂我不懂他具體做了什麼。＂
Impact factor 現在已經取代了生物學家的腦子，你不必對自己的學科有 taste, 高
impact factor journals 會幫你解決這問題。他們的 taste 就是你的 taste。悲哀。 |
|
