JIF has problems. https://t.co/Er3oLxvjN2
@JulioMTNeuro @andpru @KordingLab No, no and no…. IF has nothing to do with quality. If it was, high -impact journals would publish pre-registered papers, high power replications, etc… They don’t. See paper by @brembs on the topi
@biolumiJEFFence I think that is kind of what this shows (if I understood it correctly). Taken from https://t.co/agA0G4lM0H https://t.co/2LYbKXR54E
@davidhagmann @a_m_mastroianni In reality even this heuristic does not hold. Higher prestige journals have significantly higher rates of retraction, one should be MORE sceptical of papers in more prestigious publications https://t.co/0PxdepQmgi https://t
Dergi sıralamalarıyla ilgili iki eleştirel makale: Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/Mow2yLoD4D The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects https://t.co/pVbMVGziYR
@prokraustinator @NeuroPolarbear It's mischaracterizing the paper to say "it's written off." Look at the passage in question; nothing being "written off," just results presented. Now compare to relevant passage from the earlier @brembs et al. study we're l
RT @brembs: @ehud @WiringTheBrain Who profits from irreproducible science? https://t.co/1js3IXvyCl
tell me how you measure me and i will tell you how i will behave
RT @DoctorZen: @AcademicChatter 1. Keep talking with PI. PIs can be persuaded, but may not change their mind in front of you. 2. "Top tier…
RT @DoctorZen: @AcademicChatter 1. Keep talking with PI. PIs can be persuaded, but may not change their mind in front of you. 2. "Top tier…
@AcademicChatter 1. Keep talking with PI. PIs can be persuaded, but may not change their mind in front of you. 2. "Top tier" is probably PI code for "high Impact factor", so ask if PI has read this: https://t.co/MxNxOwYJOv
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @pol_eco_pub: A very thorough work comparing (unpublished) dissertations and published articles. Researchers "beautify" their data and t…
RT @pash22: Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/ZSgSDlc74U via @brembs et al https://t.co/Gi32bc3bnG
RT @pash22: Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/ZSgSDlc74U via @brembs et al https://t.co/Gi32bc3bnG
RT @pash22: Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/ZSgSDlc74U via @brembs et al https://t.co/Gi32bc3bnG
RT @pash22: Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/ZSgSDlc74U via @brembs et al https://t.co/Gi32bc3bnG
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/ZSgSDlc74U via @brembs et al https://t.co/Gi32bc3bnG
RT @CameronNeylon: Really interesting approach to probing the relationship of prestige of publication venue with questionable research prac…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @CameronNeylon: Really interesting approach to probing the relationship of prestige of publication venue with questionable research prac…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
A very thorough work comparing (unpublished) dissertations and published articles. Researchers "beautify" their data and the more "prestigious" the journal, the more they do it.
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
I'm sure there can (and will) be plenty discussions on why this correlation exists. What I find much more interesting here is the actual approach: comparing content of dissertations and papers resulting from them. Yay for open theses! #OverlyOpenEditor
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @CameronNeylon: Really interesting approach to probing the relationship of prestige of publication venue with questionable research prac…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
But does higher journal prestige not also correlate with more impact ? Prestige attracts more cheaters, sure, but also attracts more true breakthroughs. Replacing journals with open science libraries would decrease false positives, but also would decrease
RT @CameronNeylon: Really interesting approach to probing the relationship of prestige of publication venue with questionable research prac…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
The more prestigous the journal the more overselling and hypotehsis/data tweaking is happening. I'm not surprised... but it's nice to have some numbers.
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
Really interesting approach to probing the relationship of prestige of publication venue with questionable research practices, identifying results cherry-picking that can be detected by comparing early descriptions of work (in dissertations) with that whi
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
RT @nicebread303: More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable r…
More evidence that higher journal prestige (measured by JIF and established rankings) correlates with more questionable research practices: https://t.co/ewPvJtVpem A nice addition to @brembs et al. (2013): https://t.co/2O9kJ7VUYN
@LNummenmaa References here: https://t.co/XFc5JcCV6J
"Science is difficult, complicated and perpetually preliminary." 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
For my academia people, this is a GREAT article: https://t.co/q1QaqO8tpf
RT @hanno: @matthew_d_green see also https://t.co/MpDHkpNsse it's not just that this is logically a bad metric, there's quite a bit of empi…
@matthew_d_green see also https://t.co/MpDHkpNsse it's not just that this is logically a bad metric, there's quite a bit of empirical evidence of a *reverse* correlation of quality and citation counts.
@westwoodsam1 @brembs will surely tell you they are negotiated and cite this: https://t.co/bd1tnBCiMs I don't disagree, but always found it amusing that publishing colleagues are able to predict them with quite some accuracy. I suppose the issues are that
@bloomchovies @bryanccarstens @systbiol ‘Cascading’ implies a journal hierarchy. I do not approve of journal ranking, it causes a lot of damage to the system. Why not just appreciate articles for their content & not the vessel they appear in? https://t
@te_jenson Let's acknowledge that Impact Factor is deeply problematic: https://t.co/MxNxOwYJOv 7/
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
Do Impact factors relate to reliable science?
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
RT @brembs: @ElDuvelle @JohnnyFoxe @EJNeuroscience Here are two peer-reviewed papers reviewing the literature that high-IF is associated wi…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
@natesjacobs hundreds of papers Nate. Try these for starters: https://t.co/AurBoLZKfi https://t.co/BZMxMTXlar
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
RT @ZBW_news: Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs…
Der Journal Rank ist teuer, verzögert die Wissenschaft und frustriert Forscher*innen. So das Ergebnis einer Studie von Brembs, Button und Munafò: https://t.co/yBYmN34VG4 - Open Science hingegen ist frei zugänglich und ermöglicht eine effizientere Forschung
@willjharrison @ceptional @CoopSmout @BrianNosek There is a positive association between JIF and retractions (i.e., very low replicability) https://t.co/vaze5TQMv2 Of course, papers in journals with a high JIF are likely more often checked. https://t.co/k
@ShuhBillSkee @deevybee @webofscience What counts towards the numerator and denominator can also be re-negotiated retroactively by the publisher - see Table 1 here... https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv
RT @FBpsy: Os dejo algunas referencias en las que me he basado: https://t.co/55Arr8gkzg
RT @DoctorZen: I hear new Impact Factors are out today. This paper by @brembs and co. is the best analysis of why Impact Factors are a BIG…
Are traditional scientific journals even necessary in the digital age? Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/Afe8Z75C8m
RT @DoctorZen: I hear new Impact Factors are out today. This paper by @brembs and co. is the best analysis of why Impact Factors are a BIG…
RT @DoctorZen: I hear new Impact Factors are out today. This paper by @brembs and co. is the best analysis of why Impact Factors are a BIG…
@pochetb @FrVerheggen Throwing in some additional context in there, somewhat dated but sitll very insightful : https://t.co/miZVj5nRG5
RT @DoctorZen: I hear new Impact Factors are out today. This paper by @brembs and co. is the best analysis of why Impact Factors are a BIG…
RT @AnnaMartinezAlv: Food for thoughts: https://t.co/l5qDCMnFML Spoiler alert: "These data corroborate previous hypotheses: journal rank a…
Food for thoughts: https://t.co/l5qDCMnFML Spoiler alert: "These data corroborate previous hypotheses: journal rank as an assessment tool is bad scientific practice" More info can be found in: https://t.co/Yfk4MqB3uY And re how IF harm science: https:/
RT @DoctorZen: I hear new Impact Factors are out today. This paper by @brembs and co. is the best analysis of why Impact Factors are a BIG…