AbstractTracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling â€œopenâ€ and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reasonâ€”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?
Copyright (c) 2016 J. Roberto F. Arruda, Robin Champieux, Colleen Cook, Mary Ellen K. Davis, Richard Gedye, Laurie Goodman, Neil Jacobs, David Ross, Stuart Taylor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.