3 ms·
> a tool used by statistically illiterate administrative types to judge the quality of research Pfft, I bet you only say that because you have a low h-index.
by gaur 10y ago
> a tool used by statistically illiterate administrative types to judge the quality of research
Pfft, I bet you only say that because you have a low h-index.
- apathy 10y agoNot exactly -- 13,000 citations and counting, mostly due to a few papers in Nature, Cell, and NEJM. But that doesn't change the fact that JIF is a terrible metric. Frankly, papers like the above are why impact factors are so misleading. Most research in the above journals will not be cited as heavily as ours has been. Even counting citations is better, although if admins would actually read the papers, that would be better-er. Even NIH intramural people talk about impact factor like it means something. Pretty fucked considering that the publishers of glamour rags have vested interests that are very nearly the opposite of "careful scholarship".