Chat: Should We Ditch the Impact Factor?

Chat Guests. (L) Sandra Schmid is the Cecil H. Green Distinguished Chair in Cellular and Molecular Biology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. (C) Heather Piwowar is a postdoctoral researcher at Duke University who works remotely from Vancouver, Canada, and who primarily studies the way bibliometric factors and credit attribution affect scientists. (R) Mike Price is a staff writer for Science and the chat moderator.

[The live video chat will begin at 3 p.m. Eastern on Thursday 19 September. Please leave your questions for the guests in the comment box below and check back just before it begins to join the chat.]

The journal impact factor was designed to help librarians decide which journals to subscribe to and was never intended as a measuring stick for the value of a scientist’s research, as it is sometimes used today. Now, there has been a push to reexamine the importance that tenure committees and journal reviewers assign to journal impact factors.

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.

Join Heather Piwowar of Duke University, an expert in bibliometric factors and credit attribution, and DORA signatory Sandra Schmid of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center on Thursday, 19 September, at 3 p.m. EDT … .

Source and Link Available Via:

[ ]