>
> Well, it is clear from this comment that in different fields there are different rules... . In macromolecular Xtallolgraphy, where some people deal with biologists from biomedical sciences, the impact of journals is an important aspect during evaluation and, unfortunately, pre-publication review of structures has no actual value in their field. For a structural BIO-logist in biomedical sciences, a paper it is not "just a paper", it is an effort of years reduced to a (or few) paper(s). The non-structural BIO-people understand what is a Cell paper, but not at all about what it is a pre-publication of a structure. My thougts go in the direction of grant applications, fellowships, promotion, all filtered by the impact factor but not by pre-publication of structures which, btw, it is neither considered in the h-index of a researcher.
>
Oh what the hell, someone else poured the gasoline, I may as well supply a lit match:
What Maria says is absolutely true--I dwell among biologists, so I fully understand the rules of the field. But it's not so clear that these rules are good ones.
Biology is obsessed with high impact, and I argue science is ill served by this preoccupation. The highest impact-factor journals seem to have the highest number of retractions (see this past Tuesday's New York Times Science section for a discussion). And in this forum it's certainly germane to note that the technical quality of published structures is, on average, poorer in the highest impact journals (at least by some criteria; see the paper from Brown & Ramaswamy in Acta Crystallogr D63: 941-50 (2007)).
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Director, Biochemistry Graduate Program
Drexel University College of Medicine
Room 10-102 New College Building
245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192 USA
(215) 762-7706
[log in to unmask]
|