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…
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…
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…
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 problem: https://t.co/WArJFwonlP
@R__INDEX more retractions in higher JIF journals (but not for the reasons you state): https://t.co/oJRWsfGyQi
@ernestorr @IanMedical Podemos disentir en los argumentos sin caer en lo personal. NEJM también se equivoca, y mucho. https://t.co/NW9qqEbM5A https://t.co/aGEr2dcsW8
@mcmsharksxx * I never consider Impact Factor. I don't need to (no more promotions for me), and I think it's a problem (https://t.co/WArJFwonlP; https://t.co/5fsxbX1XVl). 5/
@JkayFlake This is my go-to reference https://t.co/gjvTbOg5eA #MeasurementSchmeasurement
@danielumpierre I just send them this... 😁 https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv
@katiecorker https://t.co/3zJLd11kDw Though something tells me you may already know this one. 😉 It's been my go-to in these sorts of arguments, so if you find a better one I'd be interested as well
"Much like dowsing, homeopathy or astrology, journal rank seems to appeal to subjective impressions of certain effects, but these effects disappear as soon as they are subjected to scientific scrutiny." 🔥#bars #bibliometrics https://t.co/5NcHC0PoSS
Wow, what, really?
@Max1957 Niente di nuovo: «higher ranking journals are also more likely to publish fraudulent work than lower ranking journals [...] unreliability is higher in high-ranking journals» (Brembs 2013). https://t.co/30XGOy9ROA
@Stijn_Baert @KU_Leuven @LucSels "Goede proxies" (en prikkels) lijken dan toch wel essentieel. Ik denk almaar meer dat gebruik van IF meer kwaad dan goed doet https://t.co/AuY0x3GdUg https://t.co/0lP2MFZCTd https://t.co/XjW2WNzHdi
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. https://t.co/ZsvryfdyDH
RT @brembs: @MarcusMunafo @AcademicRogue @trnsprtst @mendel_random @PNASNews Therefore, people like @MarcusMunafo and others have been coll…
RT @leedewit: @CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a…
RT @leedewit: @CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a…
RT @leedewit: @CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a…
RT @leedewit: @CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a…
RT @leedewit: @CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a…
RT @leedewit: @CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a…
@CameronBrick I'm still astonished how many scientists (and editors) are still (uncritically) presenting Impact Factors as a valid metric. IMO @brembs, @ButtonKate & @MarcusMunafo have nailed why (empirically/statistically) this is a flawed metric http
The rationale for this is here. TL;DR: " Therefore, we suggest that abandoning journals altogether, in favor of a library-based scholarly communication system, will ultimately be necessary." https://t.co/vHGbvgANsO
@AntoineVacavant @mdelhaye @MonniauxD Source additionnelle à ce raisonnement: https://t.co/22ZkMGtHAj
@ElsevierConnect what do you say?
RT @hanniepower: Here's a great paper cited by @GEWard14 about how detrimental giving incentives for publishing in high impact factor journ…
Here's a great paper cited by @GEWard14 about how detrimental giving incentives for publishing in high impact factor journals can be: https://t.co/7VKuelq6GM #EMBLmalaria
RT @brembs: @sms2sms @wikinews_ch @IsabellWelpe @Lambo @ImTunnel Hier die Quellen zu dieser Aussage: https://t.co/kSaM6Juaru https://t.co/1…
@Praetor777 @PLOSONE ¿Qué medimos: Retracciones/publicaciones o Retracciones/Impact Factor para determinar que es más grave?https://t.co/TeVamMNVrX
This is why we have so many science sceptic people, leaders, and countries! The highest IF journals have the highest number of #retractions. Authors (taxpayers) pay a fortune to publish in them. They are #Predators too. https://t.co/0YSPV50Jwm https://t
"El impact factor mide el prestigio de una revista y tiene que ver con su calidad" 🤔https://t.co/NW9qqEbM5A https://t.co/3PAVuF4va9
@StarzanPlanets Oh you're in for a real treat! Recommended entrance to the rabbit hole is this article by @brembs https://t.co/AF74Gj5a2j See what you think after reading that :)
@natalieharrower @conorocarroll @Education_Ire @hea_irl @dri_ireland See also this: @brembs et al. (2013) https://t.co/EYAeuMtTFC
RT @MarcusMunafo: @tomayates @JoRWinter @ukrepro @bengoldacre @RR_Oxford There's this: https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv
@tomayates @JoRWinter @ukrepro @bengoldacre @RR_Oxford There's this: https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv
@psalkovskis @lucy_maddox @BABCP You might be interested in this: https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv
RT @philipphoman: @JimvanOs1 I think that has already been demonstrated. See this paper by @brembs @buttonkate @munafo, nicely showing why…
@JimvanOs1 I think that has already been demonstrated. See this paper by @brembs @buttonkate @munafo, nicely showing why the IF is "negotiated, irreproducible, and unsound". Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/okLMnlz2Ug
"These data corroborate previous hypotheses: using journal rank as an assessment tool is bad scientific practice. Moreover, the data lead us to argue that any journal rank (not only the currently-favored Impact Factor) would have this negative impact."
RT @philipphoman: @markgbaxter You probably know the paper by @brembs @ButtonKate @MarcusMunafo but it's worth sharing again. Nicely shows…
@markgbaxter You probably know the paper by @brembs @ButtonKate @MarcusMunafo but it's worth sharing again. Nicely shows why the IF is "negotiated, irreproducible, and unsound". https://t.co/okLMnlz2Ug
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/okLMnlz2Ug
@drjbeaudry @etklapwijk @itjohnstone That excerpt is from Ch 7 of my book https://t.co/EqIDv9yWEs But you find the relevant background material in these key references https://t.co/EZOyrL87lS https://t.co/yfmrNTKQw2
Damn good article presenting data on the problems with the impact factor as a measure of rank and "importance" https://t.co/9cTtbdz9NL
RT @brembs: @Protohedgehog Neuroscience studies, Fig. 2: https://t.co/jijd3E9bdd
@aggieerin Here are a couple of papers on it: https://t.co/Kxohh9KUQ4 and https://t.co/cDcKHLBoax
@KordingLab @jjodx Look at this interesting paper in that very journal (cc @brembs): https://t.co/HPv4lkD63y Fig. 3: IF became more predictive of citations after it was introduced; what kind of causal relation does that suggest?
If you think journal rank is a good indicator of trustworthy science, I direct you to Deep impact by @brembs and colleagues https://t.co/WArJFwonlP and https://t.co/5fsxbX1XVl.
RT @brembs: @samuelkohtala Indeed! The data suggests that the most prestigious journals indeed contribute to these trends: https://t.co/kSa…
RT @brembs: @samuelkohtala Indeed! The data suggests that the most prestigious journals indeed contribute to these trends: https://t.co/kSa…
@gonschorek_d @Kaysonfakhar It's been done: https://t.co/sBEqc5CtbZ https://t.co/EqH0xxh5as (spoiler: correlation between IF and citations is weak indeed)
@NatProdReports I love NPR as a journal - but please don't report your IF with three digits, as this simply makes no sense (https://t.co/qhO3trvUN8) - if the IF makes sense, at all... (https://t.co/br73jEydV2)
RT @brembs: @Ecotoxicologo @NatureNews Actually, it has been public knowledge since the early 1990s that the IF is negotiated rather than c…
RT @brembs: @Ecotoxicologo @NatureNews Actually, it has been public knowledge since the early 1990s that the IF is negotiated rather than c…
An interesting perspective on publishing practice and potential ways out! https://t.co/yU1MiGTtrq
RT @brembs: @DaveFernig @FelipeIMerino @AdrianListon @JohnLauner @NatureNews If reliability and not just novelty (as in MMR/autism or #arse…
RT @brembs: @DaveFernig @FelipeIMerino @AdrianListon @JohnLauner @NatureNews If reliability and not just novelty (as in MMR/autism or #arse…
Reliability is the foundation, novelty is generally bull, since someone somewhere will have at the least got a glimpse decades ago... https://t.co/Gx7AiRbSwM
RT @nicolamlow: No hope for academia as long as senior researchers, especially in quantitative sciences, allow themselves to downgrade achi…
RT @nicolamlow: No hope for academia as long as senior researchers, especially in quantitative sciences, allow themselves to downgrade achi…
No hope for academia as long as senior researchers, especially in quantitative sciences, allow themselves to downgrade achievements on the basis of a debunked average #impactfactor #JIF @marcelsalathe @c_althaus @AdamJKucharski @mlipsitch https://t.co/vN94
RT @brembs: @MikeTaylor @tor_berg @thePeerJ @PLOSONE Nature and Science (along with Cell, Lancet and NEJM) are the top retractors of the in…
RT @brembs: @MikeTaylor @tor_berg @thePeerJ @PLOSONE Nature and Science (along with Cell, Lancet and NEJM) are the top retractors of the in…
RT @paulwouters: Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/ZWYM1gJs8r
@GCBalazs @schneiderleonid I am saying that other scientists appear not to agree with your description, and I linked to an article that explored what might be going on. Here is another: https://t.co/DSULcdAYtF That is why I say that for non-scientists the
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank https://t.co/x4vlHjBeSl
RT @neuroadept: Some updates to the paper https://t.co/aXizv6Qjrh here: https://t.co/dRAbT4xAll
Some updates to the paper https://t.co/aXizv6Qjrh here: https://t.co/dRAbT4xAll
Worth a frequent reminder: "journal rank is a moderate to strong predictor of both intentional and unintentional scientific unreliability" https://t.co/aXizv6Qjrh
"Unfortunately, in addition to there often being little difference in publisher service, prestige can be quite... https://t.co/9yec4Y9bWv
RT @brembs: @Protohedgehog @Science_Open @whyopenresearch References in section "Impact Factor—Negotiated, Irreproducible, and Unsound" her…
@acritschristoph There have been zero data in this thread showing that. The fact that article-level citations and the IF are auto-correlated is a BAD thing https://t.co/UqCBzL8HqB - see also https://t.co/OBqf7CD4sJ and https://t.co/BlQ7vn5bYB
@debunkdenialism What do you mean by credible? Can you define that? Journal rank relates to many other things, see https://t.co/OBqf7CD4sJ and https://t.co/BlQ7vn5bYB for example by @brembs.
Why we need to pay more attention to “hidden jewels” : highlighting the limitations of relying on journal rank #ImpactFactor https://t.co/XctDuxM6gc https://t.co/d8MWWwuhoD
RT @MarcusMunafo: @GinnyBarbour @PLOSMedicine And number of "published articles" in denominator can retroactively be changed via negotiatio…
@GinnyBarbour @PLOSMedicine And number of "published articles" in denominator can retroactively be changed via negotiation... See Table 1 here: https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv cc @michaelhoffman https://t.co/tZMvQYx2kC
RT @chrisdc77: @TjeerdWBoonstra @Protohedgehog Not if there is no metric or combination of metrics that can convey useful information. It j…
RT @chrisdc77: @TjeerdWBoonstra @Protohedgehog Not if there is no metric or combination of metrics that can convey useful information. It j…
@TjeerdWBoonstra @Protohedgehog Not if there is no metric or combination of metrics that can convey useful information. It just perpetuates an illusion (or shared delusion) of journal rank. This article by @brembs et al is insightful on this: https://t.co/
An excellent point from David. A couple of key references here: https://t.co/8kK4iUWM9c and https://t.co/AF74Gj5a2j #SpotOn17 https://t.co/0LIXSm29Zx
@brembs @natesjacobs @PLOSONE @CellCellPress Nate, have you seen "Deep Impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank" from @brembs and colleagues? https://t.co/InSxjNt3qm
RT @timelfen: "Deep Impact: Unintended Consequenses of Journal Rank" https://t.co/nkp80ZvUST via @_akpiper. Another take-down of the Impact…
@Ben_C_J @alex__morley @Netjeridi I think it's a bit of both (if you're going to cheat may as well aim high!) More detailed analysis here: https://t.co/Kzy6YQRNmv
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. HT @cwellmon https://t.co/fw68KQgrY3 https://t.co/l5qXTTIVLg
RT @timelfen: "Deep Impact: Unintended Consequenses of Journal Rank" https://t.co/nkp80ZvUST via @_akpiper. Another take-down of the Impact…
"Deep Impact: Unintended Consequenses of Journal Rank" https://t.co/nkp80ZvUST via @_akpiper. Another take-down of the Impact Factor.
+of certain effects, but these effects disappear as soon as they are subjected to scientific scrutiny." https://t.co/oC2clmxdmW