A review of what's wrong with ranking journals -- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank by @brembs http://t.co/9FSxtgyM89
Great read on the impact of the impact factor. #science #impactfactor #journals http://t.co/qgQVcoKyLe
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of what's wrong with ranking journals -- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank by @brembs http://t.co/9FSxtgyM89
Does journal ranking damage science? Interesting looking new paper argues that it does. http://t.co/24WImFzzBg
@david_colquhoun @DavidPriceUCL @HEFCE see also new paper on DEEP IMPACT by @brembs et al. http://t.co/6ZUUi7xz60 http://t.co/W12bmfFSHd
"abandoning journals altogether will ultimately be necessary" - Unintended consequences of journal rank http://t.co/q1NBHXoRx5 by @brembs
"abandoning journals altogether will ultimately be necessary" - Unintended consequences of journal rank http://t.co/q1NBHXoRx5 by @brembs
A review of what's wrong with ranking journals -- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank by @brembs http://t.co/9FSxtgyM89
"abandoning journals altogether will ultimately be necessary" - Unintended consequences of journal rank http://t.co/q1NBHXoRx5 by @brembs
A review of what's wrong with ranking journals -- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank by @brembs http://t.co/9FSxtgyM89
A review of what's wrong with ranking journals -- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank by @brembs http://t.co/9FSxtgyM89
RT @JohnFBruno: "using journal rank as an assessment tool is bad scientific practice" http://t.co/ov2TaUuwiB
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
"using journal rank as an assessment tool is bad scientific practice" http://t.co/KnWj91uqUe
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
@p_gl Ouch, read paper: http://t.co/MG4MgZ2wzF @lu_cyP @kasthomas @MDC_Berlin @McDawg
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank: submitted by avogadros_number [link] [comment] http://t.co/uFVYV0LsVl
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
@david_colquhoun @DavidPriceUCL @HEFCE see also new paper on DEEP IMPACT by @brembs et al. http://t.co/6ZUUi7xz60 http://t.co/W12bmfFSHd
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
Nice of @Frontiers to advertise their impact factor in the header of this article criticizing journal rankings: http://t.co/enGbZilIey
"Therefore, we suggest that abandoning journals altogether -- will ultimately be necessary." http://t.co/7NbvVhMGRi ht @carlzimmer
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
Analyzing journal rank/ impact factor and the importance for research (or lack there of) http://t.co/oEseVZ8P0I
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
Evidence that higher-ranking scientific journals are "more likely to present discoveries which are less reliable": http://t.co/aer9V5KmiG
"Therefore, we suggest that abandoning journals altogether -- will ultimately be necessary." http://t.co/7NbvVhMGRi ht @carlzimmer
Really interesting review on journal metrics and the bad science they inculcate http://t.co/vMyMCmSnAW MT @carlzimmer
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
alternatives to the impact factor & a case for a change http://t.co/5nA4xfsxfJ
Really interesting review on journal metrics and the bad science they inculcate http://t.co/vMyMCmSnAW MT @carlzimmer
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
Nice of @Frontiers to advertise their impact factor in the header of this article criticizing journal rankings: http://t.co/enGbZilIey
"...using journal rank... is bad scientific practice [and] any journal rank would have this negative impact." http://t.co/bFozvO9a4a
"Therefore, we suggest that abandoning journals altogether -- will ultimately be necessary." http://t.co/7NbvVhMGRi ht @carlzimmer
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
“@carlzimmer: Review of what's wrong w ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/b7nk6g8hK4 Science writers shouldn’t be part of problem.”
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
Authors suggest abandoning scientific journals entirely! @dvergano @carlzimmer http://t.co/nkwZCLaLEA
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
how journal goodness affect science http://t.co/A6i2KjyhtT more disciplines would benefit from using arvix. via @carlzimmer @stevenstrogatz
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
"Therefore, we suggest that abandoning journals altogether -- will ultimately be necessary." http://t.co/7NbvVhMGRi ht @carlzimmer
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
A review of all that’s wrong with ranking scientific journals. http://t.co/YUGei0rbBt We science writers shouldn’t be part of the problem.
@p_gl Ouch, read paper: http://t.co/MG4MgZ2wzF @lu_cyP @kasthomas @MDC_Berlin @McDawg
@p_gl Ouch, read paper: http://t.co/MG4MgZ2wzF @lu_cyP @kasthomas @MDC_Berlin @McDawg
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank http://t.co/mECZ1xF7G7
"We suggest abandoning journals altogether, in favor of a library-based scholarly communication system" http://t.co/VePJp8v5l7
@Kazzah @DrTomCrick And field. How is no. of citations an indicator of quality? See http://t.co/WduED3bV6y and http://t.co/H8PFH3i5Na
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
will we finally get rid of the impact factors of journals? http://t.co/aiDUqmbipq
but these effects disappear as soon as they are subjected to scientific scrutiny." 2/2 http://t.co/WDOH0S88ls
@Sciwhat Ironic really, seeing as the only thing IF correlates well to is bad science, or retraction rate: http://t.co/M0ZmrWfuHL
Relationship between impact factor and retraction rate http://t.co/KDrQO7vgiy
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
Interesting publication on effect of journal impact factors http://t.co/zNJP6TgDvj
RT @lu_cyP: retraction rate correlates w/ #impactfactor - @brembs at @MDC_Berlin http://t.co/B1Bz4Xk9CB http://t.co/lM7HAB9X4S
@ReedRoberts @lu_cyP @MDC_Berlin See http://t.co/Ed9f1fPMIE by @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
For the full #impactfactor story see http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
@terngirl @DrHanneke @MDC_Berlin This is the original paper from last year: http://t.co/OnpBKafjxz from @brembs
@ReedRoberts @lu_cyP @MDC_Berlin See http://t.co/Ed9f1fPMIE by @brembs
@KristineWadosky @melioravit @brembs Yes, you do. Show them this if they ever even think of daring to use IF: http://t.co/M0ZmrWfuHL
@KristineWadosky @melioravit @brembs Yes, you do. Show them this if they ever even think of daring to use IF: http://t.co/M0ZmrWfuHL
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank http://t.co/o7l87jm4GN
@reachquadri Did someone say "Impact Factor"? Have you read http://t.co/mLTDhDPnMX by @brembs, for a start? @emckiernan13 @MikeTaylor
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank - http://t.co/SrnZfh3CcZ
@Kazzah @DrTomCrick And field. How is no. of citations an indicator of quality? See http://t.co/WduED3bV6y and http://t.co/H8PFH3i5Na
http://t.co/oYa70KIe9D (Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank)