Paleonet: Updated list of paleontological journals with the mostrecent impact factors

Christian Emig brachnet at aliceadsl.fr
Tue Jul 10 18:22:37 GMT 2012


Bonjour à tous,

I have in mind that the main point is not the so called-IF ranking because the point is to get (open) access to the scientific papers which are writen with the salary of the scientists who have to pay to read their papers.
Since many years the CNRS has a open access politics see in French http://openaccess.inist.fr/ in other words: Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (INstitut de l’Information Scientifique et Technique - Inist) of the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS).

Why not moving from the IF game to the open access one?
Brachnet, dealing with brachiopods of course, has two pages with open access journals (marine and paleontological) in which papers on brachiopods may be published:
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/BrachNet/ANNONCES/JOURNAL/MJ.html
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/BrachNet/ANNONCES/JOURNAL/PJ.html

Cordialement à tous,written

Dr. Christian Emig
Directeur de Recherches Honoraire au CNRS

BrachNet
20 Rue Chaix
F - 13007 Marseille
(France)

http://paleopolis.rediris.es/Phoronida/EMIG/
----------------------------------------------------
http://emig.free.fr/Groupe-EMIG.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Le 10 juil. 2012 à 12:35, Ross Mounce a écrit :

> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
>> I'm not sure I want to know, but what are impact factors, and how do they 
>> affect the quality of what I'm reading?
> 
> Kenneth and I were discussing Thomson Reuters Impact Factor 
> http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/
> 
> this well-compiled Wikipedia article also provides a detailed explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
> 
> It seems like most academics intuitively know we shouldn't use it to assess researchers, or where we should publish the next paper (appropriateness of subject, and accessibility seem like better criteria to me), and yet we still seem drawn to referring to it like a moth to a flame.
> 
> So I suggest we _actively_ ignore IF, leading by example. The 'impact factor game' can't continue if no-one's playing it. But as Kenneth quite rightly points out many (most?) publicly funded academics in the past and perhaps even currently are judged on the impact factors of where they publish (sadly, not the quality of *what* they publish). But I'm sure this will change in time.
> 
> 
> I hope that explains everything?
> 
> 
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Paleonet mailing list
> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
> http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.paleonet.org/pipermail/paleonet/attachments/20120710/13889771/attachment.html>


More information about the Paleonet mailing list