En ny artikkel fra Cameron Neylon og Shirley Wu oppsummerer fint hva som er tilstanden for evalueringsmål i akademia i dag. Nedlastinger er problematisk fordi det kan være misledende som mål på kvalitet selv om det kan måles veldig raskt. Siteringer er bedre, men det kan ta veldig lang tid før de oppstår slik at man ikke så lett kan bruke dette på dagsaktuelle spørsmål. Men Neylon og Wu er sikre på en ting:
The key point is that journal impact factor is a very poor measure of article impact.
Og alternativet til Impact factor er å bygge bedre filtre:
As Clay Shirky famously said [19], you can complain about information overload but the only way to deal with it is to build and use better filters. It is no longer sufficient to depend on journals as your only filter; instead, it is time to start evaluating papers on their own merits. Our only options are to publish less or to filter more effectively, and any response that favours publishing less doesn't make sense, either logistically, financially, or ethically. The issue is not how to stop people from publishing, it is how to build better filters, both systematically and individually. At the same time, we can use available tools, networks, and tools built on networks to help with this task.
No comments:
Post a Comment