Although historically journal IF [impact factor] has been a convenient quantitative shorthand, has its (mis)use contributed to inaccurate perceptions of the quality of scientific articles? Is now the time that equally convenient but more individually accurate metrics be adopted? ...
In the late 1970's when I began graduate school, large bulky word processing machines were just being invented, and small personal computers did not exist. This was a period when if one wished to learn what was being published, one had to reach for the weekly/monthly periodicals....In that era, it was laborious and time consuming to assess individually a journal's or a colleague's citation records. Hence, back then, judging a "book by its cover" or rating a paper based on the journal's IF would seem excusable simply because there was little other practical recourse.
In 2007, one can do much better....
Today, one's individual citation frequency is easily accessible to all who have a few minutes to spend and internet access to databases. Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science can each fully provide such information....
[M]any scientists employ the "gilt by association" approach, first sending their papers to high-visibility, high-IF journals....
In the past, to support the interest of equal access to knowledge by scientists and students in developing economies who cannot afford subscription-based journals, I have argued that we have a responsibility to support Open Access publishing. From a principled point of view, not to do so is poorly defensible. On the other hand, if one formulates decisions using a self-interest citation frequency driven perspective, evidence similarly supports that in head-to-head comparisons Open Access articles are cited more frequently than non-Open Access counterparts. In today's publishing world, there are important roles to be played by both subscription and Open Access journals. However, as Open Access journals ascend in quality and visibility and globalization brings us closer to previously distant strangers, scientists confident in the inherent content and value of their papers might ask if they can tolerate the "guilt associated with not supporting egalitarian access"?
Posted by
Peter Suber at 6/19/2007 07:39:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
