Science 10 October 2008
Vol. 322. (no. 5899), page 191
Letters
Impact Factor Fever
In a recent Editorial ("Reviewing peer review," 4 July, p. 15) B. Alberts et al. addressed the most important problem affecting the scientific community today: the incredible pressure to publish, which is the drift of the "publish or perish" philosophy. Scientific quality is bound to suffer when scientists focus only on their publication records.
.
As an author, reviewer, and editor of a small international scholarly journal, I have noticed a dramatic increase in plagiarism, "salami-slicing" science, and other kinds of research misconduct over the past few years.
.
I fully agree that the peer-review process should be revised in order to reduce its length and make it less agonizing for authors, reviewers, editors, and readers (1). Some of the methods suggested in the Editorial, such as sending reviews on to other journals and enlarging the pool of referees, are certainly needed and will hopefully be successful. However, Alberts et al. failed to mention what is perhaps the most debilitating illness plaguing the scientific community, which I call the "impact factor fever." The exacerbated pressure to publish we all suffer from is induced by an exaggerated reverence for the impact factor.
.
Scientific achievement cannot be soundly evaluated by numbers alone. As Albert Einstein reputedly said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." How long must we wait until an antidote against the impact factor fever is developed?
.
Paolo Cherubini
Dendrosciences
WSL Swiss Federal Research Institute
CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
.
Reference
1: M. Raff, A. Johnson, P. Walter, Science 321, 36 (2008).
..
The editors suggest the following Related site:
EDITORIAL
Reviewing Peer Review
Bruce Alberts, Brooks Hanson, and Katrina L. Kelner
Science 321 (5885), 15. (4 July 2008)
[DOI: 10.1126/science.1162115] Summary » Full Text » PDF »
.
Fonte: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5899/191b
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
2 comentários:
The current pressure affects not only publications, but the general behavior of a large part of society and is autophagic. Evolutionarily regressive, or reverse selection ...
In all that lives, what matters is quality and not quantity due environmental issue and mathematics. Ex Split less between more does not seem a sensible and rational thing ..
In the case of human natural selection should always focus the mor intelligent, adaptable and plastic and sterilize the less intelligent. The man should interfere as little as possible in this process if you do not want destroy the habitability of the planet.
Natural resources are limited and of them many finite.
What distinguishes us from other animals is rationality, and this imposes on us certain obligations that are tougher. They get the logic of divide less and still more by the fact that the terrestrial biomass has provided support over 4 billion human beings and their aggregates. No species can make use of more than 1 / 8 of biomass but she has no way to regenerate, we have taken in 1 / 4, and talk of CO2 that ludicrous falsehood ...
The current pressure affects not only publications, but the general behavior of a large part of society and is autophagic. Evolutionarily regressive, or reverse selection ...
In all that lives, what matters is quality and not quantity due environmental issue and mathematics. Ex Split less between more does not seem a sensible and rational thing ..
In the case of human natural selection should always focus the mor intelligent, adaptable and plastic and sterilize the less intelligent. The man should interfere as little as possible in this process if you do not want destroy the habitability of the planet.
Natural resources are limited and of them many finite.
What distinguishes us from other animals is rationality, and this imposes on us certain obligations that are tougher. They get the logic of divide less and still more by the fact that the terrestrial biomass has provided support over 4 billion human beings and their aggregates. No species can make use of more than 1 / 8 of biomass but she has no way to regenerate, we have taken in 1 / 4, and talk of CO2 that ludicrous falsehood ...
Postar um comentário