tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post4368690389762924386..comments2024-01-08T08:39:39.026-08:00Comments on The Open Source Paleontologist: A Paleontology-Specific Impact Factor for PLoS ONEAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-87870855971139632802012-04-26T10:52:01.272-07:002012-04-26T10:52:01.272-07:00Probably so - if I have time I might do that tonig...Probably so - if I have time I might do that tonight. (and respond to your previous email - sorry for the delay!)Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-76429929746681965542012-04-26T10:44:35.613-07:002012-04-26T10:44:35.613-07:00Andy, wouldn't it be more comparable to calcul...Andy, wouldn't it be more comparable to calculate a vertebrate paleontology IF for <i>PLoS One</i>220myahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403919493457640549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-14671426598305405812012-04-26T08:19:19.592-07:002012-04-26T08:19:19.592-07:00Much agreed! I usually prefer Google Scholar, but ...Much agreed! I usually prefer Google Scholar, but for this case used Web of Science for better comparability.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-11071049938445478792012-04-26T08:00:53.040-07:002012-04-26T08:00:53.040-07:00No probs ;)
It's interesting to see such a di...No probs ;)<br /><br />It's interesting to see such a difference between Web of Knowledge & Google Scholar citation counts.<br /><br />People tend to rely on Web of Knowledge because the data is 'cleaner' and it's what the official (proprietary) Impact Factor uses. BUT, although messier - Google Scholar is more inclusive in what it counts, such as Brazilian journals like Caminhos de Geografia.<br /><br />I wonder what distorting effects this has on our view of 'impact'?<br /><br />Does impact in South American journals not 'count'?!?! These are all further good reasons why we should ween ourselves off depending on Thomson Reuters Impact Factor - it's flawed in so many different ways, and some just don't realise this!Ross Mouncehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02722518972624656199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-83916807246723567332012-04-26T07:53:07.338-07:002012-04-26T07:53:07.338-07:00Thanks for the pointer back to your article - apol...Thanks for the pointer back to your article - apologies for neglecting it!Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16171447306687358664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3467242881996852098.post-30647566362999117222012-04-26T07:36:30.944-07:002012-04-26T07:36:30.944-07:00By my calculations PLoS One's 2010 "paleo...By my calculations PLoS One's 2010 "paleontology impact factor" is 4.15<br /><br />(using Google Scholar)<br /><br />but yeah, it's good basically.<br /><br />http://www.science3point0.com/palphy/2011/06/25/if-plos-one-paleontology-was-a-journal/Ross Mouncehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02722518972624656199noreply@blogger.com