Loading…
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:
| Published in: | Nature (London) 2019-05, Vol.569 (7758), p.621-623 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| 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!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703 |
| container_end_page | 623 |
| container_issue | 7758 |
| container_start_page | 621 |
| container_title | Nature (London) |
| container_volume | 569 |
| creator | Wouters, Paul Sugimoto, Cassidy R. Larivière, Vincent McVeigh, Marie E. Pulverer, Bernd de Rijcke, Sarah Waltman, Ludo |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2231854707</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A587040335</galeid><sourcerecordid>A587040335</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90ltrFDEUB_Agit1Wv4APMuhLfZia-6VvpXgpFAqtPofMzMk461y2SQbttzfbWcWFpYQkkPzOeUj-CL0h-Ixgpj82nAgtS0xMnpKzkj1DK8KVLLnU6jlaYUx1iTWTR-g4xjXGWBDFX6IjRgjThvIVMreQfnTjz25si27YuDoVPi9TiOdFBSlBKH65h1ikqVjPTQuFK9bTHEbXv0IvvOsjvN7tJ-j750_fLr-W1zdfri4vrsuaY8pKox2jjTdOABMKFDNegtTMUxCO0korpjCVpDaNoWAqcKJy0gtaGSW4wuwEnS59N2G6nyEmO3Sxhr53I0xztJQyordSZfp-oa3rwXajn1Jw9ZbbC6EV5pgxkVV5QLUwQnD9NILv8vGef3fA15vu3v6Pzg6gPBoYuvpg1w97Bdkk-J1aN8dor-5u9y1dbB2mGAN4uwnd4MKDJdhuo2CXKNgcBfsYBcty0dvdu83VAM2_kr9_nwFbQMxXYwvB7n42PtX2D9YUuLI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2231854707</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal</title><source>Nature</source><creator>Wouters, Paul ; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. ; Larivière, Vincent ; McVeigh, Marie E. ; Pulverer, Bernd ; de Rijcke, Sarah ; Waltman, Ludo</creator><creatorcontrib>Wouters, Paul ; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. ; Larivière, Vincent ; McVeigh, Marie E. ; Pulverer, Bernd ; de Rijcke, Sarah ; Waltman, Ludo</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-0836</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-4687</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31138924</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Nature (London), 2019-05, Vol.569 (7758), p.621-623</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature Limited 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Nature Publishing Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31138924$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wouters, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimoto, Cassidy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larivière, Vincent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McVeigh, Marie E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pulverer, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Rijcke, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waltman, Ludo</creatorcontrib><title>Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal</title><title>Nature (London)</title><addtitle>Nature</addtitle><addtitle>Nature</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>706/648/479</subject><subject>706/648/496</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Comment</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Journal Impact Factor</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Research - standards</subject><subject>Research - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Science publishing</subject><issn>0028-0836</issn><issn>1476-4687</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90ltrFDEUB_Agit1Wv4APMuhLfZia-6VvpXgpFAqtPofMzMk461y2SQbttzfbWcWFpYQkkPzOeUj-CL0h-Ixgpj82nAgtS0xMnpKzkj1DK8KVLLnU6jlaYUx1iTWTR-g4xjXGWBDFX6IjRgjThvIVMreQfnTjz25si27YuDoVPi9TiOdFBSlBKH65h1ikqVjPTQuFK9bTHEbXv0IvvOsjvN7tJ-j750_fLr-W1zdfri4vrsuaY8pKox2jjTdOABMKFDNegtTMUxCO0korpjCVpDaNoWAqcKJy0gtaGSW4wuwEnS59N2G6nyEmO3Sxhr53I0xztJQyordSZfp-oa3rwXajn1Jw9ZbbC6EV5pgxkVV5QLUwQnD9NILv8vGef3fA15vu3v6Pzg6gPBoYuvpg1w97Bdkk-J1aN8dor-5u9y1dbB2mGAN4uwnd4MKDJdhuo2CXKNgcBfsYBcty0dvdu83VAM2_kr9_nwFbQMxXYwvB7n42PtX2D9YUuLI</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Wouters, Paul</creator><creator>Sugimoto, Cassidy R.</creator><creator>Larivière, Vincent</creator><creator>McVeigh, Marie E.</creator><creator>Pulverer, Bernd</creator><creator>de Rijcke, Sarah</creator><creator>Waltman, Ludo</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal</title><author>Wouters, Paul ; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. ; Larivière, Vincent ; McVeigh, Marie E. ; Pulverer, Bernd ; de Rijcke, Sarah ; Waltman, Ludo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>706/648/479</topic><topic>706/648/496</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Comment</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Journal Impact Factor</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Research - standards</topic><topic>Research - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Science publishing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wouters, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimoto, Cassidy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larivière, Vincent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McVeigh, Marie E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pulverer, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Rijcke, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waltman, Ludo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Nature (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wouters, Paul</au><au>Sugimoto, Cassidy R.</au><au>Larivière, Vincent</au><au>McVeigh, Marie E.</au><au>Pulverer, Bernd</au><au>de Rijcke, Sarah</au><au>Waltman, Ludo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal</atitle><jtitle>Nature (London)</jtitle><stitle>Nature</stitle><addtitle>Nature</addtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>569</volume><issue>7758</issue><spage>621</spage><epage>623</epage><pages>621-623</pages><issn>0028-0836</issn><eissn>1476-4687</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>31138924</pmid><doi>10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0028-0836 |
| ispartof | Nature (London), 2019-05, Vol.569 (7758), p.621-623 |
| issn | 0028-0836 1476-4687 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2231854707 |
| source | Nature |
| 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 |
| title | Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T03%3A55%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rethinking%20impact%20factors:%20better%20ways%20to%20judge%20a%20journal&rft.jtitle=Nature%20(London)&rft.au=Wouters,%20Paul&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=569&rft.issue=7758&rft.spage=621&rft.epage=623&rft.pages=621-623&rft.issn=0028-0836&rft.eissn=1476-4687&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA587040335%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4023-98a32df9a5e357e739f6e683f2e5a22b87370261c9d92e9bea5ba6f52b9754703%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2231854707&rft_id=info:pmid/31138924&rft_galeid=A587040335&rfr_iscdi=true |