linking back to brembs.net






My lab:
lab.png
Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
 Currently Online (38)
 Extra Information
MicroBlog
You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup

[23 Dec 12: 13:20]
Inbox zero! I don't even remember the last time I could say that!

[06 Aug 12: 14:21]
Phew! Done with nine 20min oral exams, three more to go. To be continued tomorrow...

[14 Oct 11: 11:45]
Just received an email from a computer science student - with an AOL email address?

[03 Jul 11: 22:26]
Google citation alerts suck: I just found out by accident I rolled over h-index of 13 and 500 citations http://blogarchive.brembs.net/citations.php

[21 May 11: 18:14]
6.15pm: Does god have Alzheimer? No #rapture in Europe...

[01 May 11: 11:31]
w00t! Just been invited to present at OKCon 2011! #OKCon2011


Networking

Subscribe to me on FriendFeed
Follow brembs on Twitter

Research papers by Björn Brembs
View Bjoern Brembs

Science Blog Directory
Random Video
SciSites
Despite the recent downpour of evidence against the use of Thomson's BIF, I still get comments from people such as "However, IFs are still the most used way of evaluating a researcher's career and value. Even if we find this ridiculous, it's just the way it is." or "in our institution, every researcher has to publish in journals whose BIF is at least 5.". In the light of the current state of affairs concerning the BIF, this is just embarrassing. So here are the top three reasons why the BIF is dead:
  1. The BIF is negotiable and doesn't reflect actual citation counts (source)
  2. The BIF cannot be reproduced, even if it reflected actual citations (source)
  3. The BIF is not statistically sound, even if it were reproducible and reflected actual citations (source)
Now go and spread the information so I don't have to suffer from these ridiculous statements any more. grin.png
And of course, there is some other, more transparent and accurate journal ranking tool available (ScImago) for those inclined to such siliness, but as journals will also become obsolete in the foreseeable future, scientific reputation building will happen rather differently than today.
Posted on Wednesday 23 July 2008 - 15:08:54 comment: 0
Thomson Scientific   impact factor   citation statistics   bibliometrics   citation metrics   journal ranking   

Render time: 3.3303 sec, 0.0196 of that for queries.
http://blogarchive.brembs.net/news.php?item.397
blogarchive.brembs.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-13
60359
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VCVY2MS6A5LCZDJEZDANFLVJGLX4JGVM
<urn:uuid:4fdda3ca-ad93-4191-8f41-8b73194c9cd9>
2017-03-23T16:18:53Z
31.47.249.36
sha1:RQ25UW7WO2W7V6RTV4HG76TDN5EJBALM
<urn:uuid:80b25ae8-210b-44e4-83f5-ffdd4cca02bc>
http://blogarchive.brembs.net/news.php?item.397
response
<urn:uuid:7ca63e0d-c92c-4adf-affa-62f619566040>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf