The Scientist: NewsBlog:
New impact metric
Posted by Elie Dolgin
[Entry posted at 19th January 2009 04:00 PM GMT]
In an attempt to provide alternative metrics to the traditional journal impact factor, the open-access journal Public Library of Science ONE announced that it will release a slew of alternative impact data about individual articles in the coming months.
The new "articles-level metrics project" -- which will post usage data, page views, citations from Scopus and CrossRef, social networlking links, press coverage, comments, and user ratings for each of PLoS ONE's thousands of articles -- was announced yesterday (Jan. 18) by Peter Binfield, the journal's managing editor, at the ScienceOnline'09 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
From its inception at the end of 2006, PLoS ONE has eschewed the notion of impact factors. (It is not currently listed by the ISI Web of Science's rankings.) Binfield argued that the traditional impact factor judges a journal's overall performance, rather than assessing impact at the article-level. The new scheme, however, is aimed at evaluating each article on its own merits, regardless of the other papers in the same journal, he said. PLoS ONE doesn't plan to crunch the data itself, though. "We're not being arrogant enough to make our own metric," said Binfield. Rather, he hopes that the journal's readers will use the information to come to their conclusions. "We're putting the data out there and letting the world figure it out." Eventually, Binfield hopes that readers will be able to personalize how they view the data, and sort articles according to the metric of their choice. "The more metrics we have, the more it'll lead to a dilution of any one [metric]," said Bjoern Brembs, a neuroscientist at the Free University of Berlin in Germany and member of PLoS ONE's editorial board. Related stories: [16th September 2002] [7th September 2001] [2nd February 1998] [3rd February 1997] |
Rate this article
metrics
by Bjoern Brembs
[Comment posted 2009-01-21 09:12:13]
[Comment posted 2009-01-21 09:12:13]
@abc def: This is practically a description of PLoS One.
In general: No metric can ever substitute reading the actual publications. However, if metrics are required, you better have several of them. For one, it makes any single one less important and the total harder to game. Second, assessment can be made flexibly, depending on the demands of the user. As such, I applaud the new metrics to be rolled out at PLoS One next month.
The above notwithstanding, in the end, it's not expert opinion nor metrics which eventually makes papers famous, infamous or irrelevant. Only the passage of time can reliably do that.
Disclaimer: I volunteer as PLoS One academic editor.
In general: No metric can ever substitute reading the actual publications. However, if metrics are required, you better have several of them. For one, it makes any single one less important and the total harder to game. Second, assessment can be made flexibly, depending on the demands of the user. As such, I applaud the new metrics to be rolled out at PLoS One next month.
The above notwithstanding, in the end, it's not expert opinion nor metrics which eventually makes papers famous, infamous or irrelevant. Only the passage of time can reliably do that.
Disclaimer: I volunteer as PLoS One academic editor.
true review
by abc def
[Comment posted 2009-01-21 05:32:28]
[Comment posted 2009-01-21 05:32:28]
If there is any institution, researcher, etc. out there listening.
Here is my idea to achieve a fair, true reviewing and quality evaluation. A feedback system (ebay style, but better) where readers of the article can score the value of the article and possibly rate a number of relevant scientific aspects. In this way, impact of good articles would be reinforced and bad ones would be marginalized (despite appearing in a high IF journal, for instance. Or viceversa). This system could be integrated in article databases such as PubMed. Finally, a number of measures should be implemented to reduce fraudulent reviews (like registering the IP address, user registration and so on).
Let's give the entire scientific community the power to peer review!
Here is my idea to achieve a fair, true reviewing and quality evaluation. A feedback system (ebay style, but better) where readers of the article can score the value of the article and possibly rate a number of relevant scientific aspects. In this way, impact of good articles would be reinforced and bad ones would be marginalized (despite appearing in a high IF journal, for instance. Or viceversa). This system could be integrated in article databases such as PubMed. Finally, a number of measures should be implemented to reduce fraudulent reviews (like registering the IP address, user registration and so on).
Let's give the entire scientific community the power to peer review!
DemandFactor at Journal of Vision
by Andrew Watson
[Comment posted 2009-01-20 12:39:24]
[Comment posted 2009-01-20 12:39:24]
We applaud the effort by PLoS One to introduce new metrics to help readers and authors judge the value and impact of individual articles. At the open-access online Journal of Vision, we have since May 2007 offered detailed usage statistics for individual articles (LINK These include a measure ? DemandFactor ? that attempts to summarizes the download activity for an individual article. PLoS ONE might consider including this among their metrics. Whatever the precise measures adopted, we hope and expect that metrics of this kind will be of great value to readers, authors, and science administrators.
Andrew B. Watson
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Vision LINK
Andrew B. Watson
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Vision LINK
Comment on this blog