3 ms·
The journals have an "impact factor", an arbitrary metric that determines how noteworthy they are. My impression is that very few journals are actually read di
by udp 10y ago
The journals have an "impact factor", an arbitrary metric that determines how noteworthy they are. My impression is that very few journals are actually read directly - most papers are found via Google Scholar and the journal they're in doesn't matter.
However, in academia, the "prestige" of the journals you have published to is hugely important. Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish, so the assumption is that if you have publications in a good one you must have done more groundbreaking research. To an academic, this is the kind of thing that affects whether you get grants, whether you get paid more, whether you can get a job elsewhere.
Some journals are pretty much talked about in hushed whispers, like "that PhD student got an ___ paper in their first year, they must be some kind of genius". In reality, research tends to be more about who you know, what kind of work you're doing, and whether you're in the right place at the right time.
- ianderf 10y ago> Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish, so the assumption is that if you have publications in a good one you must have done more groundbreaking research. I wonder why nobody created a single peer-reviewed platform for all scientists to use? Elsevier is just piggybacking on other people's work and funds.
- Vinnl 10y agoBecause there are more than a single one :) Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- ianderf 10y agoEven several different peer review systems would be much better than Elsevier.
- PeterisP 10y agoThere are many possible platforms, however, there's a significant network effect since it's very harmful to your self-interest to switch to such a platform before everyone else does and (even more importantly) all the funding agencies acknowledge that this is the thing to look at.
- tomaskafka 10y agoSo, the solution to a market taxed by a hegemon is to create even bigger hegemon? What happens when the investors and shareholders of 'even bigger hegemon' start wanting their profits? Elsevier II.
- Vinnl 10y ago> Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish It should be noted that this selectivity is not just on quality, but also e.g. on how "groundbreaking" the results are. This results in papers in top journals actually being retracted more often than in others, since they're more likely to be false.