You state: “Despite its founders seeming disdain for the JIF, when PLOS ONE received its first JIF for 2009 (4.351), authors of the world responded by flooding the journal with manuscript submissions.”. The number of citations an article collects offers one perspective on how the work has influenced its field, and is one of the many diverse measures that PLOS Article-Level Metrics provide to help the community measure article impact (others include usage and social sharing). http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full. Equity, Social Determinants and Public Health Programmes - Page 130 I feel it will not matter much. Submit your manuscript Journal Information Dumping 1.8 million papers into a big unsorted, unranked pile does not seem to be a good solution to the problem of misranking. PLOS is a signatory of DORA and pledges to follow the five DORA guidelines for publishers: 1. Kent is right, with such a growth curve, not to mention changing perception of authors towards the journal’s quality, it will take years to reach any kind of (quasi) steady-state JIF. I am sure that this chart alone would disclose a big truth about the global accpetance of several high JIF journals, where one would find more publications from all over the world at PLoS ONE, instead of restrcited to certain labs and certain countries. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific ... However, these journals have strict editorial guidelines that select manuscripts from the best of each field and reject the rest. International Journal of Public Health | Home PLOS Pathogens: A Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal You’re trying to imply the reverse causal connection. Results which are not used are useless. Something like a citation frequency plot – which attempts to solve the long tail of the Journal Impact Factor – but shows how […]. Then, I have a logic to suggest them that here is the place when you can play selective screening, by deciding which one to be on print and which one to appear online, as today all journals have online subscriptions also. From that point, my culture is rather “confrontational”. The latency in the signal to the response is really important in Phil’s hypothesis, but his graph doesn’t visually capture this at all. In this example, plant taxonomists would be better off publishing in PLOS ONE–as the JIF would likely be higher than any plant taxonomy journal–and cancer researchers would be better off publishing in a disciplinary journal, where the JIF would not be depressed by the publication of other fields of biology. cancer research) tend to have much higher JIFs than other fields (e.g. There is no escaping the fact that a paper can only be properly evaluated by reading it. Sustainable cropping systems for the future. All those extra cell biology papers mean lots of extra citations for the whole field, so papers in this area receive many more citations overall compared to ophthalmology, where only a few hundred papers are published each year. I think that journals do and MUSTpublish “rebuttal” papers if those papers are supported by own experimental data and/or mathematical calculations (or even common sense). Science as a social process is in fact analogous to a beauty contest because truth is beauty and deep truth is what science is after. Instead, they should seek to publish their articles wherever their audience is more likely to read them. 1: Citation Distributions of the PLOS Journals. In fact, finding relevant papers for a research is also affected by these kind of issues, namely the ad-hoc process in literature review. When volume is so high no reader wants to waste time digging limitlessly and finding his kind of stuff. Transparency in reporting and methodological rigor have received increasing interest in psychology and cognitive science. Irony is that, such irrational estimation of rank is being used by a community, which is supposed to be led by rationals and logics, scientists…and we are blindly following this tradition despite of it being an obselete and in utter need of modification with current scenario of scientific world. As a result, you can see at the article level the impact of specific research on its field. An interesting column but I take issue with the central premise — that authors are submitting to PLOS ONE largely or entirely due to its JIF. I agree with you. I would not be surprised if the PLOS ONE JIF slides in future years, but I’d expect that based on the ever growing long tail of published articles. If I’m a postdoc ready to hit the job market and I publish an article covering my current work, I don’t want to wait 2-3 years for citations to accumulate, I want to start my own lab now. JCR was earlier published as Science Citation Index, and now it is published by Clarivate Analytics, a Web of Science Group. The second reason why PLOS ONE‘s editorial policy will not be able to correct their declining JIF is based on the differential citation patterns of the biomedical literature coupled with the preference of authors to be published in a journal that meets (or exceeds) the citation potential of their own articles. On Monday, PLOS Biology published two articles on citation metric-based evaluation of published research. The journal's mission is to advance global health, promote research, and foster the prevention and treatment of disease worldwide. @ZenPublisher @benrainbow @ashleydfarley @yvonnenobis @F1000Research @rschon A few more here: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/11/07/strategy-integration-workflow-providers/, @ZenPublisher @benrainbow @ashleydfarley @yvonnenobis @F1000Research Dating back to 2017, @rschon has been writing about this move from publishers into all aspects of the research workflow https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/09/cobbling-together-workflow-businesses/, Dead as a Doornail https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/11/19/dead-as-a-doornail/ via @scholarlykitchn. Maybe. Scientists shouldn’t behave like brokers on stock exchange and panic at any 10% fluctuation, otherwise even the best things can collapse! In addition to the 2-year Impact Factor, the 3-year Impact Factor, 4-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Real-Time Impact Factor can provide further insights and factors into the impact of Journal of Global Health. Sir, you are correct that sometimes ranking also does matter. PLOS Global Public Health is a global forum for public health research of the highest ethical and methodological rigor that reaches across disciplines and regional boundaries to address some of the biggest health challenges and inequities facing our society today. The lowest Journal Impact IF of Global Public Health is 0.921. Public Health Announcement of the latest impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. They also provide a potent motive to flood fields that are already over-crowded and entrench a hypercompetitive system that increasingly disadvantages graduate students and early career researchers. But at least, this notion has logic and doesn’t lead to an absurd. Let it settle between the scientist and an authentic review system concerned only with the quality of science being presented! The irrationality lies with those choosing the JIF as the determining factor in making those decisions, not the researchers who are merely following the most pragmatic path to moving up the ladder. I, for example, have no much “well established” Full Harvard Professors behind my back so I will start with PLONE. Using China as an example, their incentives for impact factor don’t differ at all between a JIF of 1 and a JIF of 3, and the drop off between the 1-3 category and the <1 category in terms of cash payout is fairly low. How would have the “Nature” folks ranked the first two Einstein’s relativity papers now? I feel compelled to point out how misleading the graph is. Essentially, two articles published in journals with widely divergent Impact Factors may very well have the same number of citations. In calculation of JIF, this factor plays major role. The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric factor based on the yearly average number of citations on articles published by a particular journal in the last two years. This a far more confusing and less relevant graph. Ask authors to furnish highlight and a main diagram to present before the article on the journal page. The PLoS community-run journals also received their first impact factors: 4.9 for PLoS Computational Biology; 7.7 for PLoS Genetics; and 6.0 for PLoS Pathogens. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/policy/policy-projects/team-science/, […] Measuring Up: Impact Factors Do Not Reflect Article Citation Rates […]. Add your ORCID here. This Collection highlights research on the impact of social conditions on individuals' mental wellbeing, including epidemiological research on the predictors and . Because, as this article points out, a couple of stars can make a difference to a small journal. The truth usually lies in the middle and practically nothing in real science has “1-0” options, all have their own pro’s and con’s. Thank you for doing the work to provide the data to back up these statements. Are you sure that had PLONE existed in 1949, it would have rejected lobotomy? That may or may not be the readers of a journal with a high JIF. Science, Nature, PNAS) run into the same problem where the citation dynamics of one field (e.g. Any human system based on judgement will have a level of error but that is no argument against it unless a better system is being argued for. If one would look at total citations and readibility, I am sure that it will be much higher with journals like PLoS, compared to traditional guys who desperately manage their publicaitons per month to mange their JIF, which is out and out an artificial performance meter. It is like a mowing machine that cuts a lot of weed grass on the lowest level but can cut out the future sequoia tree because it doesn’t fit any definition of the bush ;-)) Very often, trully innovative, revolutionary papers have been published in some small “obscure” journals first, just to avoid theft the idea by the reviewers while rejecting the manuscript. For very large journals that publish thousands (or tens of thousands) of articles per year, any one highly-performing article has almost zero influence on the JIF. Citations are to ‘citable documents’ (as classified by Thomson Reuters), which include standard research articles and reviews; distributions contain citations accumulated in 2015 to citable documents published in 2013 and 2014. PLOS Pathogens is a community-driven and Open Access journal publishing ground-breaking work that significantly advances our understanding of pathogen biology or pathogen-host interactions.. We welcome outstanding original research covering the full breadth of pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, parasites, fungi, and prions, as well as co-infections and microbial communities in disease. Phil Davis is a publishing consultant specializing in the statistical analysis of citation, readership, publication and survey data. According to the database of the year 2017, the journal citation reports, tracked the impact factor for nearly 12, 298 journals. We recently plotted all citations to every PLOS ONE paper published in 2010 (thanks to our ALM guru Martin Fenner, and to Scopus for the data in the graph above). Based on the performance of articles published in 2012, next year’s (2013) JIF will likely decline further. Scholarly Kitchen Podcast: OK Google -- What's Next? There is growing concern that scholarly output may be swamping traditional mechanisms for both pre-publication filtering (e.g. 4) Impeccable review system, where I have witnessed a system to ensure justice to authors and several instances where reviewer abuse has been curtailed greately. PLOS Medicine Special Issue Editor's choice: Global child health from birth to adolescence and beyond. Altmetrics are fast! My point is that probably PLONE would have goten that paper on lobotomy published even faster as it is less conservative but many things in PLONE depend on a particular reviewer’s set of mind while in the “Nature”, there is a more or less unified set of stanrads. “A decline in their 2012 Impact Factor will likely signal the year when authors (at least for whom the JIF is an important factor) turn away from the megajournal and return (as some hope) to a discipline-based model of publishing.”. Discover a faster, simpler path to publishing in a high-quality journal. al. Its formula stands as a very tentative and half hearted, and factors like visibility, reading times, discussions etc should be included while calculating it. It looked fabulous, you just have to drink ibuprophen or indometacin, and you will not get Alzheimer’s disease! I don’t think it is. In that case, the science published in PLoS One just got more reliable over the last few years. They are not blogs. Found inside – Page 612Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44, 1271–8. Oxman, A.D., Lavis, J.N., ... Prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with prestroke and poststroke dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. ... PLoS Medicine Editors (2011). I think PLONE is a unquie combination of scientific quality and professional diversity and at the same time, luck of elitarism, the balance, which is very difficult to keep. And they are so big, this will likely set off a chain reaction that changes the scholarly communication system at least subtly - and possibly dramatically. You also imply that traditional journal’s only benefit is a falsely inflated impact factor. This measure provides a ratio of citations to a journal in a given year to the citable items in the prior two years. First, can you cite any studies that show that authors have a preference to be published in journals with high journal impact factors? November 6, 2021. In this book, Hotez describes a new global paradigm known as “blue marble health,” through which he asserts that poor people living in wealthy countries account for most of the world’s poverty-related illness. This shows the relationship I think you’re trying to cover with less chance for confusion or bad signal. Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Your email address will not be published. This sequential submission pattern not only puts an enormous burden on journal editors and reviewers, it also causes unnecessary and unacceptable delays in making results available to the wider scientific community and the public. Submit to this PLOS ONE call for papers to help expand the global knowledge on Health Services. It publishes peer-reviewed research papers from disciplines within and beyond the Health Sciences. The fall of PLOS ONE's JIF is to be expected if you look at how the Journal Impact Factor is calculated and the structure and editorial policy of the journal. I’m still waiting to see more from altmetrics that offers indications of quality, rather than indications of interest or popularity (both useful things to measure, but not necessarily correlative with quality). These are all welcome steps but ultimately, the culture will only change when the institutions responsible for overseeing the assessment of researchers and those who constitute the evaluation panels take active steps to change how they assess scientists. Save my name and email for the next time I comment. PLoS Medicine, to cite an example close to home, has recently restated its mission - focusing on the diseases and risk factors that have the most profound impacts on global health. Found inside – Page 277Cheng Q, Cunningham J, Gatton ML (2015) Systematic review of sub-microscopic P. vivax infections: prevalence and determining factors. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9, e3413. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003413 Counihan H, Harvey SA, ... Translational Global Health brings you the latest in science, policy, practice and impact for Global Health. Interesting research. Which has resulted into some sort of scientific nexus and lobbyism also, keeping at bay the true reach of innovative research from various labs all around the world. That would be the goal, or perhaps at least moving to better existing metrics to replace the JIF (or maybe using a panel of metrics rather than just one). International Scientific Journal & Country Ranking. Its goals are to improve the health and well-being of all . PNAS (7378 articles, 71,842 citations). Anyway, the citation index (h-factor, to be more precise, self-ciations excluided) I think is a much more fair parameter, although it also has its own heels (let say it is an insect . This one doesn’t accomplish its intended purpose, and sends inadvertent signals that have no real meaning or context. The graph tells an interesting story about the range of papers published in PLOS ONE, showing that, from ground-breaking, highly-cited research to small studies that appeal to niche audiences, the journal really is for all of science. PLOS Global Public Health is a global journal for public health research of the highest ethical and methodological rigor that reaches across disciplines and regional boundaries to address some of the biggest health challenges and inequities facing our society today. Ravi: being selective may indeed keep a journal’s IF high but journals have been selective for far longer than the IF has existed. PLOS ONE promises fair, rigorous peer review, broad scope, and wide readership - a perfect fit for your research every time.. Those interested in the mechanics of identifying and classifying what goes into the numerator and denominator of this equation are encouraged to read (Hubbard and McVeigh, 2011 and McVeigh and Mann, 2009). Nice. And it is indeed the major reason. Annals of Global Health Factor de Impact. Data was extracted using the “Purchased Database Method” detailed in the V. Larivière et. Authored and edited by leading voices in the field, this volume serves as an ideal introduction to both the state of global health and its road from here. The highest Journal Impact IF of Pathogens and Global Health is 2.42. Yet, many researchers and research assessment panels continue to rely on this erroneous proxy of research – and researcher – quality to inform funding, hiring and promotion decisions. The original graph showed the IF and the resulting submissions. PLOS Global Public Health, a new Open Access journal for diverse research addressing global public health challenges and inequities. The beauty of PONE is its wide range, but same is its negative point when readers are considered. It’d be interesting to see avarage h-factors of PLONE vs. others. DARPA, for example, can do it much better. What else is new about the IF? Now, it is possible that people saw that the journal had a JIF and considered it a more “credible” journal purely because it had one, rather than the actual number itself. In the EU, Science Europe has just issued a report on how to evaluate multidisciplinary research that includes a recommendation for funders to evaluate applicants on a range of outputs, rather than just on publication record. It is deeply imbedded in the American and (nowadays) in the Western culture in general, that avoidance of harsh critiques as it it’s often considered as a personal atatck. For obvious reasons, you should avoid publish open access with commercial publishers. When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. a mega journal with several daughter journals. These journals also have Editors in Chief, who, like captains of their own ship, are entrusted to develop the focus and direction of their journal. Here’s a case where the little guy can compete on better terms with the big guy! If disciplinary journals are like small cruisers with captains on deck, PLOS ONE is, by design, more like a barge without a captain, no engine room, left to the direction of the currents. Found inside – Page 130This may require a different research approach, whereby all people in the study sample are exposed to the risk factor and measures of effect on mental health outcomes are calculated for exposure to protective rather than risk factors ... peer review) and post-publication impact filtering (e.g. PLOS Global Public Health. The article presents frequency plots - citation distributions - of 11 journals (including PLOS Biology, PLOS Genetics and PLOS ONE) that range in their Impact Factor from less than three to more than 30 (the analysis covers the same period as the 2015 Impact Factor calculation.) The reporting delay of the Journal Citation Reports is responsible, in part, for the boom and bust we are witnessing in PLOS ONE‘s JIF. This is true even in clinical research, whether for simple or complex interventions, where systematic reviews time and time again conclude that the evidence base is inadequate. So a benefit of selectivity around a subject allows me to easily see what is important in my field. Hundreds of thousands of researchers choose PLOS to share and discuss their work. So there have to be some shortcuts. The Journal welcomes submissions of original research, critical and relevant reviews . please contact the PLOS Author Billing department. For researchers, the career advancement and reputational reward of ‘aiming high’ when choosing a journal is too great to ignore, even when the consequences are to work one’s way down the Impact Factor ladder one step at a time, rejection after rejection. Social contexts and environments have a critical influence on psychiatric morbidity. Its goals are to improve the health and well-being of all. 0000-0002-7299-680X). I understand that in this article a projection has been discussed regarding possible fallout of PLOS ONE IF due to lowering of its current IF and continous publication of articles from all fields, instead of “selctive” trimming. What motivates our initiative to raise awareness is that despite calls to the contrary, the JIF remains a prevalent tool in evaluating scientists. These journals are playing a large numbers game that makes them completely insensitive to the performance of individual star articles: they operate entirely on the bulk flow performances of the article market. They are as follows: As we and others have frequently pointed out, impact factors should be interpreted with caution and only as one of a number of measures which provide insight into a journal's, or rather its articles . They see selectivity as their mission. PLoS Medicine is an international, multidisciplinary medical journal that aims to publish outstanding human studies that substantially enhance the understanding of human health and disease. Despite what you portend, I envisage continued growth of PLoS ONE. But this makes the question of the rationality of this preference loom even larger. JBC, J Mol Biol. Copyright held by Thomson Reuters prohibits publication of the raw data but aggregated data behind the graphs is available on Figshare. Journals in certain biomedical fields (e.g. I’m sure that these are the numbers that really matter to many scientists when they choose to submit to PLOS ONE. Factor de Impacto Análisis, Tendencia, Clasificación & Predicción. The print journals can put their reasoning that since they publish in print, they could not print large number of articles like online journals like PONE. There may be some effect to graph at some point, but it’s either too soon, or the relationship between IF and submissions is weaker than Phil is asserting. Complete List of Global Health Journals List of Global Health Journals (Google Sheet) Comprehensive list of reputable peer-reviewed global health journals with information on impact factors, inclusion in PubMed, open access status, publication fees, and article types. This is the simple explanation. By carefully selecting articles that are likely to have the biggest influence on global health and using innovative and diverse approaches to assess and indicate . What the standard system of journals does that PLoS One does not do is sort and rank articles by the process of acceptance and rejection. Add your ORCID here. Unlike Nature, Science and PNAS, all those PLOS ONE articles were made free at the time of publication. Fig. Unless PLOS ONE has cultivated a strong and loyal group of authors, a decline in their 2012 Impact Factor will likely signal the year when authors (at least for whom the JIF is an important factor) turn away from the megajournal and return (as some hope) to a discipline-based model of publishing. Does not good science come in a wide range of degree? It’s a pretty common finding when studies are performed. QED. Looks like that article in the “Frontiers” is a quite an opposite one, and following that, we can really come to the Absolute Absurd ;-)) JIF is not perfect, and I honestly prefer h-factor, but nobody has proven long-term NEGATIVE correlation between them. Found inside – Page 553PLoS Medicine. 2013;10(7):e1001477. 34. Voigt K, King NB. Disability weights in the global burden of disease 2010 study: two steps ... Impact of obesity and the obesity paradox on prevalence and prognosis in heart failure. Journal of ... This should be read along with Paul Wouter’s post (below).
Lateral Movement Side-to-side, Long Island Power Solutions Bbb, There Is No Fear In Love Bible Verse, Silver Glitter Vans Women's, Abandoned Tibetan Mastiffs Documentary, Considered As The Most Beautiful Instrument, Crown Chakra Yoga Poses, Powerport Atom Pd 4 Europe,