查看完整版本: 关于2008影响因子的提议

关于2008影响因子的提议

2008年度科技期刊影响因子即将出炉，因为牵涉到海内外学者发表大作的问题，特提出一个小建议。
建议nanost开设一个专题，内容关于IF方面的，包括前世今生以及来世。（o(∩_∩)o...哈哈）
专题主要内容为即将出炉的纳米期刊方面的影响因子，当然也包括刊登纳米方面的研究论文的综合性期刊，
比如Science，nature等。
期刊范围要大而全，尽量包含全面期刊，从高往低排列。
此专题应该结合期刊热点,Journals Highlights板块进行。
此贴一出，绝对是下一个年度nano论文投稿标准之一。



呵呵


闪了

[[i] 本帖最后由 punkx 于 2008-06-12 19:28 编辑 [/i]]

包括预测，讨论等。

绝对支持:handshake

凑个热闹

预测IF一方面难度较大，而且预测升降多少到底能起多大作用，似乎不能肯定，因为目前好的纳米杂志，大家都知道，该投哪里应该不会有多大的作用吧！个人意见
不过倒是可以作为游戏，大家参与一下，是个不错的注意！

[[i] 本帖最后由 hjlyyc 于 2008-06-12 22:44 编辑 [/i]]

回复 5# 的帖子

恩，凑个热闹。

注意不是主意

呵呵，马上要出来的好像是2007年的影响因子吧，估计最迟这个月末就要出炉了，呵呵，小小一个数字牵动了多少科研人员的心！

ok,可以搞一搞！

恩！强烈支持啊！！！:victory:

不错，挺好的

回复 7# 的帖子

YYYY是的。

回复 1# 的帖子

Maybe just because I haven't been in China for a long time and got not used to your situation, but this is definitely not a right idea.

The main reason why we submit our papers is to let others know our works and let it get cited. The IF of a journal, or how much award the author can get from the university, should not be a concern. And in the long term, if we only consider about the IF rather than the citation, the IF of a high-IF journal will drop, like APL this year.

So even you have a paper published in Naure or Science now, but 10years later, if you find it has only been cited for say 10times, is this a shame?

I would say paying too much attenation on the jounrla IFs is not the right thing.

回复 12# 的帖子

Agree!

By the way, APL sucks!

回复 13# 的帖子

'APL sucks!'  I don't think so. I had 4 papers on APL. It was a quite good journal years ago.

It sucks now because people water valueless papers there like I water meaningless posts here. The editors and authors should both be responsible for the reputation of the journal.

回复 14# 的帖子

APL has only one reviewer, that's a problem.

It's sure one reviewer can not guarantee a comprehensive evaluation to the submission. As I know, top journals like JACS needs threee reports at least to decide one submission.

回复 16# 的帖子

I don't know the situation now. in 2005, I had two reviewers on my last APL paper. Assume we are talking about the same journal.

回复 17# 的帖子

Maybe things change. Maybe the editor acts as the 2nd reviewer now. ^_^
[url]http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/reader_4a81575201000a2o.html[/url]
[url]http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=14440[/url]

回复 18# 的帖子

That blog didn't say there must be only one referee. Actually I still can remember in 2004 one of my APL paper also had two referees.

I would say APL might have accepted too many papers now but most of these papers are novel but not that practical. Getting citation requires the initial paper should be practically repeatable. Novelty is actutally a secondary issue. But when the referees review the submission, the reality is not their main concern and also it can't be a good reason to reject it. Maybe they should reduce the published paper number every year. That can help them accepting good quality paper.

Second, the period of a paper getting published in APL is now too long. Typically  more than 6months, in my feeling. Some expresses or letters can sometimes very quick, say less than 6weeks. Time will change everything. It is always too later for a letter published 6months after the first submission.

07年的刚出来就盼08的了？太急了点吧。