In article <AD3A3E2696689A3B7 at gw2-127.pool.dircon.co.uk>
crimson at dircon.co.uk (Peter Mulderry) writes:
>> I think journal impact ratings are insidious and should be derided at every
> opportunity. Basically, they're just a cheap way of evaluating someone's
> publications without having to read the papers in question.
>> Or, to put it more succinctly: they're a way of holding an opinion of
> someone's work without knowing what that person actualy does.
I am glad that my simple question at the beginning provoked this
I would take impact factor just as a matter of statistics which used to
people decide where to publish their results before the age of Current
Contents and Medline (and alike) when there was a big chance that many
scientists would not notice your work if you published in some "obscure
journal" because they simply could not read through all tables of
for all the journals.
And as Dag Stenberg noted - "some institutions which govern important
use impact ratings", probably because the people who sit on them are
used to "that new stuff".
On the other side, one can not deny the fact that review process in
journals (usually with low, low impact (?)) are not very stringent (to
it mildly), so one has to be cautious in INTERPRETING the results.
Just my 0.02.