Comments on: Ologeez Founder joins Mendeley / Changing the Journal Impact Factor

By: Leopold Baumwolle

Leopold Baumwolle — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:38:43 +0000

@bryan: i have the same question. If you download ney mozilla versions the updates arent compatible yet. so it would be great to get an email when i coul download them. so if anybody can answere i would be very gladful.

By: Bryan Newman

Bryan Newman — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:53:48 +0000

This is a dumb question but how do I sign up to get updates via email?

By: Dahman

Dahman — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:28:32 +0000

I think it’s wrong to pitch this great idea as an opposit concept to the impact factor.. we still need tools to rank journals..
I would rather see it as an addition to what already exists in this field.
We could may be add a parameter which calculates the impact of a journal based on the number of influential/important papers published in it.. So mixing the ISI impact factor with article level measures to create a whole new concept.
But please don’t do the same mistake Elsevier (Scopus) has been doing to counter Thomson (WOS/JCR) by mimicking their products.. They really should have focused on innovating the indexing industry, not creating nearly a similar tool!!
If you present your idea/tool as the ONLY alternative, then I don’t see why you are combating the Impact Factor while acting in the same way..

Well, wish you best..

By: FCT

FCT — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:03:17 +0000

I really appreciate all the PLoS journals and also PLoS One because is multidisciplinary and very dynamic. However, if PLoS ONE is intended to open new avenues in the field of the evaluation of scientific impact, it has first to be considered scientifically serious and respectable. This will be obtained by earning in 2010 an impact factor not too low (at least around 4-5). Otherwise people will have difficulties in considering PLoS ONE as a subject apt to start the transition to new ways of thinking.

By: Life blog

Life blog — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:07:01 +0000

Changing the journal impact factor through real-time transparent statistics…

I’ve mentioned Mendeley before. They refer to themselves as a Last.fm for science papers, but I think it’ll be much more. One thing they realize they are changing, as a side effect, is the impact factor (sort of like a……

By: Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote | Когнитивная психология и эмоции

Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote | Когнитивная психология и эмоции — Mon, 18 May 2009 06:52:11 +0000

[...] к команде Mendeley присоединился Jason Hoyt, создатель семантического внешнего интерфейса [...]

By: Changing the journal impact factor (And Ologeez) : Ologeez! The Blog

Changing the journal impact factor (And Ologeez) : Ologeez! The Blog — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:23:45 +0000

[...] Recently there was an announcement on TechCrunch that I would be joining Mendeley as the new Research Director . Mendeley co-founder, Victor Henning, asked me to start contributing to Mendeley’s blog right away. I chose to write about journal impact factors, and how using Mendeley can change it for the better. What you get with Mendeley is the ability to track article-level impact in real-time. You can read more about it on Mendeley at Changing the journal impact factor. [...]

By: Erik Duval

Erik Duval — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:19:10 +0000

There is much I agree with here – “science2.0″ is another way to think about it (http://erikduval.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/science20-its-coming/)…

One additional thing to consider is that it is sometimes quite helpful to open up the process of writing the paper itself as well: I did such an experiment not so long ago (http://erikduval.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/promised-and-published/) and that worked rather well.

In any case, I’ve been using Mendeley for a while now, and hope that it will become an integral of my ‘research workflow’…

By: Jason Hoyt

Jason Hoyt — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:20:27 +0000

Michael, your comments are exactly the kind of open dialog we want.

Regarding your first comment. As much as I dislike actually going through the peer review process, and as borked as it is (lots of literature on that topic), I think most agree it is needed and should never go away. It’s amazing how science is very unscientific when it comes to the peer review process.

Regarding immediate short-term feedback. It’s something we’re very concerned with to avoid bringing ADD into research. Going forward, we’re looking at different ways to present information to eliminate those problems. We don’t want to censor the raw data (that’s for the community to decide), but obviously there is some responsibility in how that data is shown.

Hopefully trending will also mitigate any effect. For example, a single snapshot in time of how often your paper is read could be misleading, but viewed over a time period, the importance of your paper (or ones you are reading) can be more accurately judged.

By: Michael Druker

Michael Druker — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:58:42 +0000

I am anxious to see Mendeley implement much of its plan, and there’s a lot to like about real-time metrics. But as it seems like it would have a pretty big impact (no pun intended), it’s worth considering the downsides. I can think of two at the moment.

First, one danger of a level playing field for journals is to de-emphasize the quality of the editorial process and of the peer review standards. This seems an easy issue to overlook, but could eventually become quite a problem.

The second is that there are upsides to not knowing what impact your article has for some time. One is that you are more likely to publish research that is worthy in itself, and are less tempted to capture the short-term attention of other scientists. Immediate short-term feedback has the potential of supporting superficiality. (The Internet is fertile ground for observations on this theme.)