Paleonet: impact factors- etc (Jere H. Lipps)

James.Verhoff at CH2M.com James.Verhoff at CH2M.com
Fri Jul 13 14:38:06 GMT 2012


If I can jump into this discussion:

>From a salvage paleontology standpoint, impact factor simply isn't useful. A large part of any BLM paleontological resources inventory review is reading what's been done before, and often the papers that are the most useful are from relatively obscure publications. Science and Nature simply aren't going to publish a paper on the depositional history of a minor bolson within the Basin and Range-no one outside of researchers in the Basin and Range is going to be interested. For those of us who are interested, these reports are critical, as there's often no other place to get the information. High-IF journals like Science and Nature have certainly earned that rank, but the publications of local museums that focus on deep exploration of narrow, local topics, some of which generate no interest beyond that region, are often far more valuable to a researcher on the ground, in a utilitarian sense. With the passing of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, particularly Section D, my sense is that salvage paleontology is going to increase in scope, and therefore this type of consideration is going to become more important.

James R. Verhoff
Staff Paleontologist


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.paleonet.org/pipermail/paleonet/attachments/20120713/88a8f61f/attachment.html>


More information about the Paleonet mailing list