| 查看: 2700 | 回复: 14 | ||||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | ||||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||||
marineman至尊木虫 (知名作家)
爱八卦爱生活
|
[交流]
大家对Plos One的影响因子如何预测？
|
|||
|
请评价！！！ [ Last edited by bingyulin3 on 2008-12-28 at 09:15 ] |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 学术借鉴 |
» 猜你喜欢
孩子确诊有中度注意力缺陷
已经有13人回复
-
三甲基碘化亚砜的氧化反应
已经有4人回复
-
请问下大家为什么这个铃木偶联几乎不反应呢
已经有5人回复
-
请问有评职称，把科研教学业绩算分排序的高校吗
已经有5人回复
-
2025冷门绝学什么时候出结果
已经有3人回复
-
天津工业大学郑柳春团队欢迎化学化工、高分子化学或有机合成方向的博士生和硕士生加入
已经有4人回复
-
康复大学泰山学者周祺惠团队招收博士研究生
已经有6人回复
-
AI论文写作工具：是科研加速器还是学术作弊器？
已经有3人回复
-
论文投稿，期刊推荐
已经有4人回复
-
硕士和导师闹得不愉快
已经有13人回复
2楼2008-12-12 09:10:29
6楼2009-04-25 08:36:53
|
看看plos one网页上的这句话，PLoS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them). 即使plos one发表一些高水平论文，总的影响因子也不会太高。ISI的SCIE迟迟不肯收录它可能也是这个原因。有人误把ISI web of knowledge 收录当成了SCI收录，目前ISI的web of science并没有收录这一期刊。 顺便多说几句，要想在plos one上发表论文，就要放弃拿着期刊做宣传的想法。这个期刊的审稿不审你论文的水平高低，而是可靠与否。也就是说，即使它的影响因子达到100，作者也不能因为在上面发表了论文，而宣称自己的研究水平如何高。这一点不同于传统期刊（以及plos系列的其他期刊）。要证明自己的水平，还要耐性等待他人引用或者被F1000等机构评价一下。 我并没有贬低plos one作者群的意思。好的论文不需要沾期刊的光，而是期刊沾论文的光。只有差的论文才整天宣传自己发表在什么期刊上。俄国数学家佩雷尔曼，因拒领菲尔兹奖而在中国新闻上反复出现，他的论文就没有发表在著名期刊上，甚至可以说没有正式发表，没有经过审稿等过程自己放到网上（arXiv）的。这位人物显然足够自信，没有必要投给严格审稿的顶级数学期刊或综合性期刊。 "the IFs of the journal where a paper is published is a very poor measure of a papers importance" [ Last edited by darwinists on 2009-5-1 at 14:32 ] |
9楼2009-05-01 14:12:58
|
http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/200 ... -impact-factor.html Guestimating PLoS ONE impact factor Abhishek Tiwari did some analysis on the number of citations that PLoS ONE is getting so far using Scopus database. We had a small discussion over the numbers on FriendFeed and I ended up looking at different set of values also from Scopus. I tried to predict the first Impact Factor for PLoS ONE that might be out sometime this year. Before showing the numbers I will repeat again that I think the IFs of the journal where a paper is published is a very poor measure of a papers importance. Although it is probably a good measure of the relative value of a journal (within a given field) we should be striving to pick what we read based on the value of a paper instead of the journal. The Impact Factors that will be published this year are calculated as the total number of citations from 2008 to papers published in 2006 and 2007, divided by the number of citable units in 2006-2007 (articles and reviews). The data I am looking at is from Scopus so it varies a bit from the one in ISI. The variability comes from the decision of what to include as "citable" articles and from the journals that are covered in Scopus versus ISI. One problem I found with Scopus data was that, for some journals, the database has multiple entries due to small variations in article titles. For PLoS Biology, PLoS Computational Biology and PLoS Genetics the number of articles published should be less than half of what is reported. This does not appear to be the case for PLoS ONE. I downloaded the tables of published articles and tried to removed redundancies looking at the tittles and authors. I counted only articles and reviews as citable items but used all articles published in 2006-2007 to get the number of citations in the year 2008. I also did the same calculations for the impact factor of the previous year to be able to compare with the data from ISI. The results were comparable but not the same. In summary, PLoS ONE might get an impact factor of about half of the expected for PLoS Computational Biology. The usual disclaimers should be said: I have no idea of how complete Scopus data is and how exactly it relates to ISI. [ Last edited by darwinists on 2009-5-1 at 14:37 ] |
10楼2009-05-01 14:35:26
|
PLoS ONE毫无疑问发表了很多很高水平的论文，这一点看看Science的Editor's Highlight以及Faculty of 1000等机构的频繁评论就知道了。 大家争论的焦点（包括Nature的那片评论）在于PLoS ONE论文的总体水平。还是那句话，PLoS ONE审稿不审论文水平这一项就决定了它的论文参差不齐。它的影响因子就相当于我们国家的人均收入，收入差距越小的国家人均收入代表性越强，像中国、印度这样两极分化的国家，普通老百姓没有觉得自己和人均收入有什么关系。只有瑞士那样的富国人均收入提高时老百姓才能感觉到富裕。这样说回来，传统的期刊（包括PLoS系列的其他期刊）论文水平相对接近，影响因子相对来说更能反映论文的总体水平。 |
12楼2009-05-04 09:10:24
|
我不算什么高手。但对一些期刊的审稿政策比较熟悉。绝大多数期刊都要求审稿人评价论文的重要程度，以及方法数据可靠性、语言是否足够准确等。如我手上正好有一篇BMC系列期刊的稿子，编辑部希望评价的第一部分就是论文水平，要审稿人从下面几项中选择一项： - An exceptional article (of the kind that might have warranted publication in such journals as Nature, Cell, Science, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal) - An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field (of the kind that might be found in the leading specialist journal in its field, such as Immunity, Development, Journal of Clinical Investigation, Gastroenterology) - An article of importance in its field - An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests - An article of limited interest - An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal 但Plos ONE的审稿过程省掉了这一项。目的是好的，避免审稿误判，让论文发表后有读者写评价。但这不可避免地会发表很多平庸论文，一个极端的例子，我就是要比较北京杨树和武汉法国梧桐的叶绿素含量的差异，只要我取样足够大，统计分析方法可靠，不管意义大小就可以在PLoS ONE上发表。 为什么我们关心影响因子，还是需要一个指标大致评价一个期刊发表论文的整体水平。虽然传统期刊都要求评价什么significance, importance或level of interest等，但不同期刊要求的significance的程度就差远了。一些影响因子很低的期刊，significance方面的评价基本上是个摆设。 多评价几句，PLoS适合那种很自信的论文，可以避免跟审稿人反复纠缠、避免拖延时间、避免浪费精力。我感觉这也许就是很多高水平论文投PLoS ONE的原因。做过十来年科研的人应该都会有过刻骨铭心的投稿经历，都会经历过极端烦人的审稿意见。等我不需要论文来评什么以后，好论文也会投稿PLoS ONE，两个字，省心。 |
14楼2009-05-05 09:01:12