These journals aggressively curate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than to stimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brands are then marketed with a gimmick called \”impact factor\” – a score for each journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequent research. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so better journals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing which has become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonus culture is to banking.
via How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science | Randy Schekman | Comment is free | The Guardian.
Thanks to my colleague Diana Hicks for pointing this out to me.
The last line of the quotation strikes me as the most interesting point, one that deserves further development. The steering effect of metrics is well known (Weingart 2005). There’s growing resistance to the Journal Impact Factor. Although the persuasive comparison between researchers and bankers is itself over the top, the last line suggests — at least to me — a better way to critique the reliance on the Journal Impact Factor, as well as other attempts to measure research. It’s a sort of reverse Kant with an Illichian flavor, which I will formulate as a principle here, provided that everyone promises to keep in mind my attitude toward principles.
Here is one formulation of the principle: Measure researchers only in ways that recognize them as autonomous agents, never merely as means to other ends.
Here is another: Never treat measures as ends in themselves.
Once measures, which are instruments to the core, take on a life of their own, we have crossed the line that Illich calls the second watershed. That the Journal Impact Factor has in fact crossed that line is the claim made in the quote, above, though not using Illich’s language. The question we should be asking is how researchers can manage measures, rather than how we can measure researchers in order to manage them.
Peter Weingart. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics Vol. 62, No. 1 (2005) 117-131.
6 thoughts on “How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science | Randy Schekman | Comment is free | The Guardian”
@brembs just sent me this paper, which may be relevant to this discussion: http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full.
Pingback: Cell, Nature, Science boycott: What was Randy Schekman’s tenure at PNAS like? | jbrittholbrook
I just read David Bohm’s book in which he reminds us of the etymology of “measure” and that in prior ages and other cultures, the word measure carries with it both quantity and a quality. Math can measure quantity but how does one measure quality?
Cool — what’s the title of the book?
Wholeness and the Implicate Order:
Make sure to choose gift cards that have no activation fee.
The rate of real estate transfer tax is 8% where the market value is up
to EUR 20,000, with any excess taxed at 20%.
The earlier is for brand awareness while the later is just code of dressing at the workplace.