In article <4enun3$skn at oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>, stenberg at cc.Helsinki.FI
(Dag Stenberg) wrote:
> Stephan Anagnostaras (stephan at ucla.edu) wrote:
> } (Dag Stenberg) wrote:
> } > The latest SCI we have here, based on 1994, says 3.079
>> } I don't take these impact factor ratings very seriously in Neuroscience;
> } some of the ratings are flatly absurd. One of these is Neuroreport's
> } which actually has quite a high rating.
>> Yes? Nobody takes them seriously, and everybody takes them into account.
>> Do you mean that Neuroreport has a too high rating for its prestige?
I mean that many of the best journals are reported as having low impact
ratings and many of the worst are reported as high impact rats. We all
know the best journals in neuroscience:
But you will find these smattered all over the ratings; for example,
Neuroreport and Neurosci Letters are rated higher than several of the above
For this reason I discount the ratings entirely; crappy journals have
high ratings, while some great journals have poor ratings. Some of these
aren't really journals people take all that seriously. Although Neuroreport
is OK for sending something quick and unimportant (but worth publishing so
someone knows about) it isn't really more than that. Nonetheless, it is
rated higher than some premiere journals (even though hardly anyone
reads it). Finally, some journals that aren't even indexed in medline
are listed as high impact. Who knows how they come up with these ratings?
STEPHAN ANAGNOSTARAS UCLA BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
STEPHAN at UCLA.EDU