NeuroReport's impact factor?

Paul Bush paul at phy.ucsf.edu
Thu Feb 8 16:53:23 EST 1996


In article <stephan-0102962158530001 at modem0-c.lifesci.ucla.edu>, stephan at ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) writes:

|> We all
|> know the best journals in neuroscience:

I don't think this issue is as clear-cut as you seem to think. It varies even
within the field of neuroscience.

|> Science
|> Nature

These two journals have been getting worse. Admittedly many important results are
published here. However, because insufficient detail is included in the papers to
allow readers/reviewers to analyze them fully, people can and sometimes do get 
away with publishing garbage just because it looks cool at first glance. There 
seems to be an increasing tendency to publish 'flash in the pan' work that has no
real substance. I think this is the inevitable consequence of increasing pressure
to publish (seemingly impressive) work to survive/advance in neuroscience.

|> J Neurosci
|> J Phys

Agreed

|> Neuron

Rarely contains stuff relevant to my work

|> Beh Neurosci

Almost never read it

|> JPET

What is it?

I would add to these:

Neuroscience, Journal of Neurophysiology and a couple of journals specific to my
subfield. In addition the Brain Research series of journals contain good studies
that are often overlooked. I think the problem of noticing/accessing important
work will be eased by the massive information processing/presenting power that is
the internet/WWW.

Ratings? To be honest I was unaware of 'impact factor' ratings until this thread.
It sounds like I didn't miss much.

Paul



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list