PR: Blogpost von Gründer, CEO und Editor in Chief John R. Adler zum Thema Impact Factor und Qualität in der Wissenschaft

06.04.2016
Teilen

A friend and colleague referred me to a recent publication that represents a major indictment of the peer-reviewed journal cartel.

This article summarizes a blog published by what is arguably a Cureus competitor, the open access-publishing house, Frontiers, which in this study could find no correlation between rates of rejection and journal impact factor.

Just for argument’s sake, let’s assume that impact factor does correlate with scientific quality. So if this study is correct, it means by extension that the rate of rejection also doesn’t correlate with quality. In turn this means that the standard peer review process (which totally dominates the journal industry) has no bearing on article quality. In other words, getting published, or not, appears to be a random event.

Accepting this fact (parenthetically one which I already subscribe to) means that despite all the process and rituals of scientific journal publishing, and the huge importance of this matter to society and academic tenure decisions, there is currently no objective index for assessing research article quality. Of course if one believes that impact factor is not a measure of quality, then the above random publication process is even more random than I implied in my argument! Based on this observation, I would like to sarcastically suggest we should rename this current process “scholarly roulette.”

Clearly there are huge shortcomings to the Frontiers study, such as selection bias and the non-medical nature of many scholarly journals. However, to a huge research community that has invested so much of their lives into the existing peer review process these type of findings must be dispiriting. Nevertheless, this current set of observations does resonate with our philosophy at Cureus, where we subscribe to the belief that as long as the medical science within is credible, there is no reason not to publish an article. In other words, we believe that we are, on average, no better equipped to discern quality than any other journal.

A big part of our confidence stems from Cureus’ unique post-publication SIQ scoring system. Although we are no smarter in finding scientific quality up front, we do believe that it is quite possible for the medical community-at-large to find quality over time, post publication. Nevertheless, to make this a reality, every reader has a role to play, which of course includes you!

 

Artikel letztmalig aktualisiert am 15.05.2016.

1 Wertungen (5 ø)
246 Aufrufe
Aus: Cureus
Die maximale Zeichenanzahl für einen Kommentar beträgt 1000 Zeichen.
Die maximale Zeichenanzahl für ein Pseudonym beträgt 30 Zeichen.
Bitte füllen Sie das Kommentarfeld aus.
Bitte einen gültigen Kommentar eingeben!
Hier klicken und Medizin-Blogger werden!

Disclaimer

PR-Blogs innerhalb von DocCheck sind gesponsorte Blogs, die von kommerziellen Anbietern zusätzlich zu den regulären Userblogs bei DocCheck eingestellt werden. Sie können werbliche Aussagen enthalten. DocCheck ist nicht verantwortlich für diese Inhalte.

Copyright © 2017 DocCheck Medical Services GmbH
Sprache:
DocCheck folgen: