From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:54:17 +0000

Dear Pamela,

Thanks for sharing this.

Most or possibly all metrics - whether traditional/established or
alternative metrics - can be gamed. The Impact Factor has many
limitations, and shouldn't for example be used in the assessment or
individual papers or individuals, but the human filtering and curation
of the data which leads to banning events such as this are arguably an
advantage.

It's encouraging to read that some funders, such as the Medical
Research Council, say they look for measures of impact such as changes
to clinical practice and influencing of policy decisions
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7436/full/494176c.html) -
things I would hope that are much harder to game and, ultimately, are
amongst the most important impacts of research.

Richard Smith's (former editor of the BMJ) six levels of influence are
also worth reading as they include some of these important but not so
easily measurable - with metrics - research impacts:
http://ecancer.org/journal/editorial/18-alternative-metrics-for-measuring-the-quality-of-articles-and-journals.php

Best regards,

Iain

Iain Hrynaszkiewicz
Outreach Director
FACULTY of 1000
http://f1000.com
Email: [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Puryear <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:35:14 -0400

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/06/new-record-66-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factor-with-self-citations.html

Pamela E. Puryear, MA, MLS, CCRM
NCARS Resource Manager
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service (NCARS)
College of Agriculture & Life Sciences
North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7643
[log in to unmask]