the pernicious habit of ranking scientists by the journals they publish in
DESCRIPTION
The empirical evidence against the use of journal rank as an evaluation tool and how to fix the scientific infrastructure.TRANSCRIPT
Deep Impact: The pernicious habit of ranking scientists by the
journals they publish in
Björn BrembsUniversität Regensburg
http://brembs.net
More scientists, more publications
Journal Rank
• Thomson Reuters: Impact Factor• Eigenfactor (now Thomson Reuters)• ScImago JournalRank (SJR)• Scopus: SNIP, SJR
Source Normalized Impact per Paper
Journal Rank
Only read publications from high-ranking journals
Job applications
Job application instructions
Publikationstätigkeit(vollständige Publikationsliste, darunter Originalarbeiten als Erstautor/in, Seniorautor/in, Impact-Punkte insgesamt und in den letzten 5 Jahren, darunter jeweils gesondert ausgewiesen als Erst- und Seniorautor/in, persönlicher Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index nach Web of Science) über alle Arbeiten)
Publications:Complete list of publications, including original research papers as first author, senior author, impact points total and in the last 5 years, with marked first and last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index according to Web of Science) for all publications.
Journal Rank
Only read publications from high-ranking journals
Journal Rank
Only publish in high-ranking journals
METRICS
Is journal rank like astrology?
Show of hands:
• Who knows what the IF is?• Who uses the IF to pick a journal
(rate a candidate, etc.)?• Who knows how the IF is calculated
and from what data?
The Impact Factor
A1 A2
C12
time
citationspublished
articlespublished
year 1 year 2 year 3
𝐼𝐹 (𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 3)=C12
A1+A2
Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
The Impact Factor
40 60
100
time
citationspublished
articlespublished
year 1 year 2 year 3
𝐼𝐹 (𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 3)=100
4 0+60=1
Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
The Impact Factor
Journal X IF 2010=
All citations from TR indexed journals in 2012 to papers in journal X
Number of citable articles published in journal X in 20010/11
€30,000-130,000/year subscription ratesCovers ~11,500 journals (Scopus covers ~16,500)
Main Problems with the IF
• Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound
Negotiable
• PLoS Medicine, IF 2-11 (8.4)(The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030291)
• Current Biology IF from 7 to 11 in 2003– Bought by Cell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…
Not Reproducible
• Rockefeller University Press bought their data from Thomson Reuters
• Up to 19% deviation from published records• Second dataset still not correct
Rossner M, van Epps H, Hill E (2007): Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 179, No. 6, 1091-1092 http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
Not Mathematically Sound
• Left-skewed distributions• Weak correlation of individual article citation
rate with journal IF
Seglen PO (1997): Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314(7079):497 (15 February)http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
Journal rank and citations
The weakening relationship between the Impact Factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012): George A. Lozano, Vincent Lariviere, Yves Gingras arXiv:1205.4328
Journal Rank and Quality
Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007). Quality of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography, 63(9), 941–950. doi:10.1107/S0907444907033847
Journal Rank and ‘Quality’
Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor Molecular Psychiatry, 14 (2), 119-120 DOI: 10.1038/mp.2008.77
Journal Rank and Methodology
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
NO EVIDENCE
Journal rank is a figment of our imagination.
Journal Rank and Fraud/Error
Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
Journal Rank and Retractions
Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX Infection and Immunity DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11
Journal rank and citations
The weakening relationship between the Impact Factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012): George A. Lozano, Vincent Lariviere, Yves Gingras arXiv:1205.4328
INCENTIVES
“High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
“Do you trust scientists?”
“Who can you trust these days?”
“Politicians? Financial experts? Realtors?“
WHAT HAPPENED?
The disaster of our digital infrastructure
HISTORY
Journal rank is a relic of the print era
Distribution yesterday
Subscriptions yesterday
Meanwhile…
Modified from ARL: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstats06.pdf, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf
% C
han
ge
19861987
19881989
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
2008-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Subscription pricesCPI/inflationJournals purchased
Subscriptions today
Distribution today
SCHOLARSHIP
Institutions produce publications, data and software
DISASTER I
Dysfunctional scholarly literature
Literature
• No scientific impact analysis
• Limited access• No global search• No functional hyperlinks• No flexible data
visualization• No submission
standards• (Almost) no statistics• No text/data-mining• No effective way to sort,
filter and discover• No networking feature• etc.
…it’s like the web in 1995!
DISASTER II
Scientific data in peril
DISASTER III
Non-existent software archives
Today‘s Digital Dystopia
• Institutional email• Institutional
webspace• Institutional blog• Library access card• Open access
repository
• No archiving of publications
• No archiving of software
• No archiving of data
WHAT NOW?
Science, tear down this paywall!
1. International Coordination
2. Hire software developers
Superior Access
• Harvest all Open Access Publications– Accessible via single interface– Not just from green repositories– Everything not obviously illegal
• Integrate resulting database– PubMed– Google Scholar
• Plug the gaps:
3. Cancel Subscriptions
Superior Alternative
• Global search and access for all literature, software and data
• Intelligent sort, filter and discover functionalities
• Scientific, evidence-based reputation system• Authoring tool for collaborative writing ans
single-click submission• Orders of magnitude cheaper: US$90/paper
(e.g. SciELO) vs. US$4,800/paper (subscription)