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]