The widely held notion that high impact publications determines who gets academic jobs, grants, and tenure is wrong. Stop using it as an excuse.

abernard102@gmail.com 2012-08-20

Summary:

... “I want to challenge the key assumption – made by nearly everyone – that choosing not to publish your work in the highest impact factor journal you can convince to accept it is tantamount to career ... Before I explain, I should note that my comments will deal exclusively with science in the United States... I can not deny that there is a very strong correlation between the impact factor of the journals in which someone has published and their success in landing jobs, grants and tenure... But, as we know, correlation does not imply causation. Even if hiring, grant review and tenure committees completely ignored journal titles and focused exclusively on the quality of the science (as they should), we would still expect there to be a strong correlation between success and impact factor... Encouraging the people we train to focus so exclusively on journal titles as the determinant of their success downplays the many other factors that play into these decisions: letters of recommendation, how effectively they communicate in person, and, most importantly, the inherent quality of their science. Sure, reviewers sometimes take shortcuts, but the quality of the underlying science and candidate matter a lot – and in most cases are paramount... My own lab provides several examples that demonstrate this reality...”

Link:

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=911

Updated:

08/16/2012, 06:08

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.new oa.gold oa.business_models oa.publishers oa.comment oa.advocacy oa.signatures oa.petitions oa.boycotts oa.impact oa.prestige oa.jif oa.obstacles oa.journals oa.metrics

Authors:

abernard

Date tagged:

08/20/2012, 15:14

Date published:

02/06/2012, 14:26