I can't wait to begin applying TLC detailing to what I think is a diamond in the rough. I've become buddies with the owner of a nearby European car repair shop and regularly stop in to chat with him while walking my dog.
The widely held notion that high-impact publications determine who gets academic jobs, grants and tenure is wrong. Stop using it as an excuse. By Michael Eisen Published: February 4, In response to my previous post on boycotting non-OA journalsmy friend Gavin Sherlock made the following comment: I laud what you are doing, and you have changed the world of publishing forever for the better.
This comment pretty much sums up why closed access publishing still dominates. Like most scientists, Gavin agrees that the system we have is bad, and that progress towards open access is a good thing.
I am not here to criticize Gavin. These few indiscretions not withstanding, he has a long and exemplary history of open access publication. If it can get to him, it can get to anyone. I am also not here to dwell on how crude a measure of impact the impact factor is [ 1 ], or how the tyranny of the impact factor is destroying science.
Rather I want to challenge the key assumption — made by nearly everyone — that choosing not to publish your work in the highest 911 research paper factor journal you can convince to accept it is tantamount to career suicide. It is ubiquitously repeated by everyone from the most successful senior scientists to first year graduate students.
Before I explain, I should note that my comments will deal exclusively with science in the United States. We have, mercifully, not followed the incredibly misguided policies used in many European and Asian countries which use formula that explicitly include impact factor to allocate jobs and money.
The underlying attitude may be as strong here, but at least it is not hard-coded. I can not deny that there is a very strong correlation between the impact factor of the journals in which someone has published and their success in landing jobs, grants and tenure.
The evidence is all around me: And more systematic studies have found a similar correlation [ 2 ]. But, as we know, correlation does not imply causation. Since the peer reviewers who ultimately make or at least strongly influence the publishing decisions are drawn from the same pool of scientists who make hiring, funding and tenure decisions, it is no surprise that the same work is valued in all of these venues.
Thus, the idea that impact factors are paramount would be a self-fulfilling prophesy even if it were completely untrue! Of course it is not completely untrue.
I have seen too many colleagues lazily use the presence or absence of SNC publications as the primary factor in screening job applicants, as a reason to or not to fund a grant application, and as a proxy for whether someone should or should not be tenured. It is also undoubtedly true that, all other things being equal, high impact publications can make a difference.
Encouraging the people we train to focus so exclusively on journal titles as the determinant of their success downplays the many other factors that play into these decisions: My own lab provides several examples that demonstrate this reality. Not only did none of them have glamour mag publications from my lab.
None of them had yet published the work on the basis of which they were hired! They got their interviews on the basis of my letters and their research statements, and got the jobs because they are great scientists who had done outstanding, as of yet unpublished, work. If anything demonstrates the fallacy of the glamour mag or bust mentality this is it.
Rather I believe we can simultaneous do right by science, by the public AND by our trainees by explaining to them what is at stake, pointing out the holes in the prevailing wisdom they hear from all sides, and then explaining and defending their actions to the hilt when we write letters on their behalf.
Or we can show some courage, shake off this silly dogma, and lead the next generation to a place that will be better for all concerned. You know what I choose. I want to reemphasize my central point. Getting jobs, grants and tenure is a competitive process in which the quality of an individual scientists previous work and future plans are evaluated.
Getting a paper published a competitive process in which the quality of a piece of work and its potential impact is evaluated.9/11 - Research Paper Evident is the fact that today the USA is the most powerful country in unequal environment.
21st century starts with doubtless domination of the USA on the international scene. Compiled by University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group The following articles are peer-reviewed journal papers that address issues surrounding the day of 9/11/ from a critical perspective.
Academics are encouraged to take an interest in 9/11 research. Annual Reports on the Collection and Use of Fees Tenth Annual Collection of Information on State Collection and Use of Fees Net Fee Report Questionnaire.
Christopher Bollyn is a well-travelled writer and an investigative journalist who has done extensive research into the events of September 11, , the conflict in Middle-East and the health effects caused by exposure to depleted uranium.
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/ A Call to Reflection and Action By David Ray Griffin Westminster John Knox Press.