Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal

We need a broader, more-transparent suite of metrics to improve science publishing, say Paul Wouters, colleagues and co-signatories. We need a broader, more-transparent suite of metrics to improve science publishing, say Paul Wouters, colleagues and co-signatories.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nature (London) 2019-05, Vol.569 (7758), p.621-623
Main Authors: Wouters, Paul, Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Larivière, Vincent, McVeigh, Marie E., Pulverer, Bernd, de Rijcke, Sarah, Waltman, Ludo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
706/648/479
706/648/496
Analysis
Comment
Evaluation
Journal Impact Factor
Periodicals as Topic - standards
Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Research - standards
Research - statistics & numerical data
Science publishing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We need a broader, more-transparent suite of metrics to improve science publishing, say Paul Wouters, colleagues and co-signatories. We need a broader, more-transparent suite of metrics to improve science publishing, say Paul Wouters, colleagues and co-signatories.
ISSN:0028-0836
1476-4687
DOI:10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3