Scientists join journal editors to fight impact-factor abuse
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/05/scientists-join-journal-editors-to-fight-impact-factor-abuse.html
Більше 150 вчених та 75 наукових організацій підписали Сан-Франциську декларацію щодо оцінки наукових досліджень ( San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) ).
В цій декларації проголошується, що деякими наукометричними показниками, зокрема імпакт-фактором журналів, зловживають як швидким засобом оцінки результатів діяльності науковців та якості наукових статей.
Зосередження на імпакт-факторах змінило стимули для вчених - вони здебільшого намагаються опублікуватись у журналах з високим імпакт-фактором, замість того, щоб намагатись проводити якісні дослідження.
Навіть компанія Thomson Reuters, яка розраховує імпакт-фактори журналів, застерігає щодо його бездумного використання.
Декларація містить 18 рекомендацій для фінансуючих організацій, дослідників, видавців та організацій, які розраховують наукометричні показники.
General Recommendation
1. Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist's contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.
For funding agencies
2. Be explicit about the criteria used in evaluating the scientific productivity of grant applicants and clearly highlight, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.
3. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.
For institutions
4. Be explicit about the criteria used to reach hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, clearly highlighting, especially for early-stage investigators, that the scientific content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published.
5. For the purposes of research assessment, consider the value and impact of all research outputs (including datasets and software) in addition to research publications, and consider a broad range of impact measures including qualitative indicators of research impact, such as influence on policy and practice.
For publishers
6. Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (e.g., 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor [8], SCImago [9], h-index, editorial and publication times, etc.) that provide a richer view of journal performance.
7. Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.
8. Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.
9. Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication [10].
10. Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.
For organizations that supply metrics
11. Be open and transparent by providing data and methods used to calculate all metrics.
12. Provide the data under a licence that allows unrestricted reuse, and provide computational access to data, where possible.
13. Be clear that inappropriate manipulation of metrics will not be tolerated; be explicit about what constitutes inappropriate manipulation and what measures will be taken to combat this.
14. Account for the variation in article types (e.g., reviews versus research articles), and in different subject areas when metrics are used, aggregated, or compared.
For researchers
15. When involved in committees making decisions about funding, hiring, tenure, or promotion, make assessments based on scientific content rather than publication metrics.
16. Wherever appropriate, cite primary literature in which observations are first reported rather than reviews in order to give credit where credit is due.
17. Use a range of article metrics and indicators on personal/supporting statements, as evidence of the impact of individual published articles and other research outputs [11].
18. Challenge research assessment practices that rely inappropriately on Journal Impact Factors and promote and teach best practice that focuses on the value and influence of specific research outputs.
Stefano Bertuzzi, executive director of the American Society for Cell Biology (ACSB): “The best of all possible outcomes would be a cultural change where papers are evaluated for their own scientific merit.” (Найкращий з можливих результатів - зміни в культурі, коли статті будуть оцінюватись за їхньою науковою цінністю).
Цікаве зауваження:
Борьба c злоупотреблением Импакт-факторами журналов « : Май 27, 2013, 12:01 » вышла любопытная статья "Scientists join journal editors to fight impact-factor abuse". http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/05/scientists-join-journal-editors-to-fight-impact-factor-abuse.html"...more than 150 scientists and 75 science organizations are hoping for today, with a joint statement called the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)". Видимо в своем CV теперь можно давать ссылку на эту декларацию с припиской, что мол, делал только качественную науку и печатал в подходящих журналах с хорошей репутацией, а не гнался за огромными импакт-факторами путем спекуляций, унижений, ужимания, выхощивания и подгонки статьи под формат журналов, приписыванием в авторы левых авторитетных ученых, и прочих манипуляций, что могли понизить качество работы.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар