Impact Factors

  • J. Roberto F. Arruda Special Advisor to the Scientific Director, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), Brazil
  • Robin Champieux Scholarly Communication Librarian, Oregon Health & Science University
  • Colleen Cook Trenholme Dean of the McGill University Library
  • Mary Ellen K. Davis Executive Director, Association of College and Research Libraries
  • Richard Gedye Director of Outreach Programmes, International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM)
  • Laurie Goodman Editor-in-Chief, GigaScience
  • Neil Jacobs Head of Scholarly Communications Support, UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
  • David Ross Executive Director, Open Access, Sage Publications
  • Stuart Taylor Publishing Director, The Royal Society, UK

Abstract

Tracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open†and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?
Published
2016-04-22
Issue
Section
Questions