Sentences with phrase «own impact factors»

Title: Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World: Combining Principles and Profit to Create the World We Want Authors: Jay Conrad Levinson (1933 — 2013), Shel Horowitz Contributing writers: Cynthia Kersey (Unstoppable), Frances Moore Lappé (Diet for a Small Planet), Ken McArthur (The Impact Factor), Yanik Silver (Evolved Enterprise) Publisher: Morgan James Pub date: April 19, 2016 • Price: $ 24.95 ISBN: 978 -1-63047-658-8 (paperback); 978 -1-63047-659-5 (eBook)

Journals are in competition with one another for attention and «impact factor,» and are always more eager to report a new, exciting finding than a killjoy failure to find an association.

In 2010, he created the Positive Impact Factor, which includes rushing statistics, as an alternative to the Passer Rating.

Low impact factors, and no real evidence that half these journals even conduct peer reviews.

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.577 5 - year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.705 CiteScore 2016: 1.49 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.602 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.832

Researchers insisted to MPs that institutions did not base funding on «impact factor» — the coverage that publication in a journal may secure in the mainstream press, but the committee appeared unconvinced.

We now know exactly how much of an impact these factors had last year: In 2015, sales tax revenue fell nearly $ 9 million short of budget, and preliminary numbers show the shortfall was nearly $ 12 million in February 2016 alone.

The funding agency thinks that I shouldn't have published in «that» journal, which according to its classification has a «low» impact factor.

The lower impact factors of the journals where novel work appears add to that effect.

These values can be easily overlooked if one focuses only on publications and impact factors.

When adjusted for publication impact factor, the United States still produced the most influential AI - related papers, followed by the United Kingdom, with China only narrowly behind, according to a recent McKinsey Global Institute analysis.

Some ways to move in this direction include eliminating journal impact factor as a criterion and removing identifying information from cover letters, they continue.

(For «Important» read «Impact Factor».)

«As a researcher, I want to publish open access, but when renowned journals with high impact factors are not open access this leaves you with a problem.

If you continue your search on the Web of Knowledge site, you will find that review journals and review - and - methods articles have the highest impact factor.

Also note that Science, Nature, and Cell have the highest impact factors in this list, suggesting that these journals are, as you would expect, the top of the heap.

What exactly is an Impact Factor?

• Assess impact factors based on whether your grandparents think they've heard of the journal.

Earlier this year, a group of concerned scientists and journal publishers signed an open letter known as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) to encourage review boards and tenure committees to «eliminate the use of journal - based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations,» and to encourage the development of alternative metrics (altmetrics) to measure a scientist's research contributions.

And for better or worse, journal prestige and impact factor are still important criteria when evaluating early - career scientists.

Whether the paper was published in a journal with a high impact factor — an often used but controversial indicator of quality — didn't seem to make a difference as to whether bias safeguards were noted, MacLeod and his colleagues write.

Notice in this example that the society - level Journal of Immunology has an impact factor of 7, whereas the near - the - top immunology journal Immunity has an impact factor of 17.5.

It's worth noting, however, that few of the journals experimenting with open peer review are among the leaders when it comes to impact factor or reputation, at least for now.

Given that we scientists are usually more concerned with achieving the best impact factor more than getting our paper into the most appropriate journal, perhaps a 70:30 split stacked toward the high impact end of the ladder, then it is a fair estimation that improving impact factor is how we should spend our time and energy.

The median funding level for PIs publishing in journals with lower impact factors — such as PLOS ONE and the Journal of Biological Chemistry — was not much lower, about the 70th percentile, but the distribution of funding brackets was more diverse.

As discussed in articles from the Lancet to the New York Times, promotions and pay rely heavily on the number of publications a researcher has and the impact factors of the journals.

«Our impact factor, a common measure of a journal's success, has increased,» he says.

Today, «[m] any career decisions are still made based on impact factors, etc..

Science is No. 1 with an impact factor of 30, ahead of «Nature» (27) and «PNAS» (10).

The journal impact factor was initially developed to help librarians determine which journals to subscribe to, not to rate individual scientists in competition for jobs or grants.

Developed by Thomson Reuters, journal impact factor measures a journal's purported importance by gauging how frequently other journals cite the papers that it publishes.

Science Careers» sister site, ScienceInsider, reported yesterday afternoon that 150 scientists and 75 scientific groups have co-signed an open letter protesting what they claim is an overreliance on journal impact factors by funding agencies, academic institutions, journals, and organizations that provide publication metrics.

So why don't journal publishers cooperate with each other, using the Thomson Reuters database to calculate their own impact factors?

An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education points out that the editors - in - chief of two other prominent scientific publishers, Nature Publishing Group and Elsevier, declined to sign the letter, although they agreed that journal impact factors shouldn't be used to evaluate individual scientists.

These are journals that sport fake impact factors, that promise a 1 - week peer review, that publish tons of papers that contain plagiarism, and that annoy researchers worldwide with doltish spam.»

At last month's Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting — an annual gathering of laureates and young scientists — Nobel prize - winner Randy Schekman, founder of open - access journal eLife, insisted that researchers should be judged on the quality of their research, rather than the impact factor of the journal in which they publish or the reputation of their institution.

The postdocs that I interviewed try to shape the research process to maximize their productivity as measured by the number of publications and the impact factor of those publications.

Alberts's editorial also notes that relying on journal impact factors to evaluate a scientist's research output «creates a strong disincentive to pursue risky and potentially groundbreaking work, because it takes years to create a new approach in a new experimental context, during which no publications should be expected.»

But that's a misuse of the metric, it argues: Journal impact factor was initially developed to help librarians determine which journals to subscribe to, not to rate individual scientists in competition for jobs or grants.

But as new institutions, departments, and programs arose, most adopted a new organizational paradigm focused on project - based work, short - term contracts, international workforce mobility, and quantitative performance indicators such as publication numbers and impact factors.

«The Journal Impact Factor is frequently used as the primary parameter with which to compare the scientific output of individuals and institutions,» the letter says.

He insisted that researchers should be judged on the quality of their research, rather than the impact factor of the journal in which they publish or their institution's reputation.

You might want to tell how many recipients received the award, how many people attended a conference you presented at, or the circulation size or impact factor of a publication.

Which universities in Britain have the output with the highest impact factor, which reflects the number of citations per publication?

«A focus on publication of reports in journals with high impact factors and success in securing of funding leads scientists to seek short - term success instead of cautious, deliberative, robust research,» the authors of the introductory piece write.

► In this week's Science editorial, Editor - in - Chief Marcia McNutt calls for moving beyond publications, citations, journal impact factors, «and derivatives of these such as the h - index» in efforts to measure the merit of research.

It is important that anyone assessing the quality of work by an individual researcher or research institution considers the value of the published articles themselves, rather than relying on impact factor,» said committee chair Andrew Miller.

REF sought to assess departments via metrics including publication impact factor.

Another area of concern highlighted by the report was the use of journal impact factors as an indicator of the quality of particular papers.

It also might not be enough if I can't afford to publish in the high impact factor open - access journals where my work is most likely to be seen.