The tyranny of the impact factor: why do we still want to be subjugated? A tirania do fator de impacto: por que nós ainda queremos ser subjugados?

2010·2.3 MB·English

by  Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque

0
Rodriguésia61(3):353-358.201
http!//rodriguesia.jbrj.gov.br
Artigo de Opinião / Letter:
The tyranny of the impact factor:
why do we still want to be subjugated?
A tiraniadofatordeimpacto:porquenósaindaqueremossersubjugados?
UlyssesPaulinodeAlbuquerque1
Abstract
A collcctive obsession with the Impact Factor (IF) has led to major changes in political Science in many
countries,andinrccentyears,thesechangeshavebeenespeciallyvisibleinBrazil.Dcspitecritiquesofboth
thismeasure’sabilitytoevaluatethescientificpublicationsanditsspreadintheevaluationofresearchersand
institutions,BrazilhastakentheIFasanimportantelementinevaluatingBraziliangraduateprograms.Inthis
article, we brieflytry to demonstrate that the IF can be subjectto many biases that sccm tobecompletely
ignored or unknown.
Keywords: ethicsinSciences,editorialpolicy,citationrate,publicationbias.
Resumo
A obsessão pelo Fatorde Impacto (FI) tem levado a grandes mudanças nas políticas científicas de muitos
países,especialmentcnosúltimosanosnoBrasil.Apesardetodasascríticasediscordânciasdessamedidapara
avaliaraspublicaçõescientíficas,casuaextensãonaavaliaçãodepesquisadoreseinstituições,oBrasiltomou
oFIcomoumimportanteelementoparaavaliarapós-graduaçãobrasileira.Nesteartigodeopinião,procurou-
se demonstrarbrevemente que o FI pode seruma fonte de muitos vieses que parecem sercompletamcnte
ignorados ou desconhecidos.
Palavras-chave: éticacmciência,políticaeditorial, taxadecitação,viesesdepublicação.
Introduction evaluate the quality or output of scientific work,
Wc have certainly witncssed agreat change but only its visibility. While there is certainly no
in the way that we regard scientists and, indeed, consensuson thissubject, the IFis supportcd bya
practiceScience itself.Thoughthesequestionsare greatmajorityofscientists; unfortunately, it is not
clear to young students and new researchers
pcrhaps asold as scientific debate, the rccurrence
withwhichsometopiesarisethroughouthistoryis whcthcranevaluativepolicyforstaffmemberswill
be adopted bascd on the Impact Factor.
truiy impressive. Without a doubt, one of these
important recurring topies is the evaluation of Surprisingly,despiteallofitsshorteomings,many
of which have bccn previously elaborated upon
scientists by the Impact Factor of thejoumals in
whichthcypublishtheirwork(sceColquhoun2003). (e.g. Kokko & Sutherland 1999), the IF is
Inrecentyears,especiallyinBrazil,theImpact increasingly used to evaluate institutions and to
Factor of joumals has received considerable dctcmiinehowrcsourccswillbeallocatcd(sceRuiz
eatvtaelnutaitoen,thbeecqauaulsietyitoifsgornaeduoaftethceoucrristeesriianuBsreadzilt,o etal.2A0c0c9o)r.dingtoKokko&Sutherland(1999:382)
andtherefore,toevaluatescientists.However,itis “the impact factoris the average numberoftimes
necessary to emphasize that the IF does not that articles published in a spccificjournal in the
'UniversidadeFederalRuraldePernambuco,Dcpto.Biologia.ÁreadeBoünica.Lab.EmobolánicaAplicada.R.DomManoeldeMedeiross/n.DoisIrmdos,52171-<XK),
Recife.PE.Brasil,upaiudb.ulrjic.br
SciELO/JBRJ
cm 1 13 14 15 16 17 18
354
Albuquerque, U.P.
Box 1-Questionsthat
maybe answeredbythe What question does the impact factor answer?
impactfactor.Text Strictlyspeaking,thejoumalIFonlymeasurestheaveragecitationrateofallthe“citable"
reproducedandmodified articles(researcharticles,technical notesandreviews) inajoumal. Assuch, 1Fisnota
Dfoorntgheebtoaxl.f(o2r0m0a5t).from pperrofmeicstetsoowlhetonmveaarsiuourseftlhaewjsoaurmeatlakqeunaliinttyo.aHcotwiveevecorn,siidnermaotsitonc.asReesa,diytpaeccrefsosrimbisliwthyaatnidt
regular updates ofthe ISI 1F provides the best available indicator forjoumal quality,
acceptedwidelywithinthescientificcomniunity.
What questions does the Impact factor not answer?
The 1F cannot assess the quality ofindividual articles, due to the qualitative varietyof
citationsdistributedinajoumal.Asmallproportionofarticlescountforalargepercentage
ofcitations.Thismeansthatatypical articleinahighIFjoumal maynotbecitedmore
frequentlythananaveragearticleinarelativelowIFjoumal.Asaresult,IFaloneisnot
abletojudgetheindividualarticle sorauthor’sperformance.Evenundertheassumption
thatcitationswereequallydistributedamongallarticles,theIFwouldonlymeasurethe
mterestsofotherresearchersinanarticle,butnotthearticle’simportanceandusefulness.
twopreviousyears(e.g. 1997-1998)werecitedina arenotinfluencedbyotherfactorsorvariables(see
particularyear(e.g. 1999)”.Byacceptingtheimpact Fiê- !)• Ifother factors dohave an influence over
occiavOtsafnirehreratmsiarencLhaittotttesebiajontiuricitrohlpighnmiiruesalastuermtmyyssmii&abaesoonalaryarjfotKnrutwtiKoamcsyocirohetalpttiekeaulohhgcrsbskwonshrlnuaposeeoiaouyrevcu&sobseaapiplfstum2sSgiuiobt0pusoofmlh0athanei5ech,etqn)steuodut.hdagarnheanHelialdtdntidiotaeahtnwinrthlqyesnedslhiu,rtvleta.g(i1eaolshtaI9rnWiweu9Ftd,eithp9iyiiim)riwtsmon,pelahpenagvaeneaassacmmdcdm2ltuneoiteevos(ansjnjsittsscostosetuiucuugahebslrvmmoeigaseialaireitIiilelnohoFtfisswgne.yfys Wittansnurheoenosnehecdiftedeieanldmlnsyvutaseosu)ieiagnmntgtsrocooibohirettbesolaohtecyirtedwrsaeaaalocthmuccniaftoefunolkhytalctwedniasuseogmtlcutdrwoiieahriseoltosesentniedc.tnstoodiuhunvofsgoaTaimdstefohrcbiifuaptotteashrhnhbtrw,eaoalhtodteooeIurtfftF(hccIkh,icitihemnisitiipotttIsoaaahawmntitcercsipiitatowtoacinnnencicaodFdsslttty,aeasoctsaFcwifitaittasoeeoairicsnnrsomttwsumunioso(mussgraItreselrFtsidktdye).os
odttiaoffgkvfeeietsrahiesbeniratl,.imtiIeymn,aptwslhuhiiricsaecatrhoitfimocnqalsuen,aoylIfiartteysessr(eusmaemsreecihnnteohrtpasertasaIcnbFtdeiilcsioenawsa)mtr.ieetaTuqsthuiuuiorstne,es htmshetyarutedaitrthehgisaustmtdteohrnpetaistcwwwnioislalvfrerbereoyemdqceuvoitvehmaelplolepbeneitxdo.lauIotnsgidsinhcgcoaousnlpltedrcSoibcvfeeiirecnsnocictaaeeslsd;e
eovivfseiqrbuyielsitttiyimoecnoswnentohtreeaIftFeirocnta.ontBhhoeexlIpF1,anpwsrewesewerin.ltlsbaedgiisvciunsgsitohne rs(eeulssapcteeecpditaitlobllcyeitfatrtoioomsnesv.eecroallogfya)c.toMrosrethoavterm,aythenoItFbies
importIafnwteatnhdenroabsusstumveartihaabtlceitianttihonesecvoanlsutaittiutoenaonf Are citations influenced by the number
Science,weshouldalsoassumethatthesecitations ofauthors ofan article or by gender?
We
definepublicationbiasasthesituationin
whichthemeritofamanuscriptisevaluatedusing
factors tangent to its intrinsic characteristics as a
bobI“•ASucybrutyesonao)iduknmToetdpnuhtlabehfyntionsyearoddsdgisluorseyouacrnnbvuttsteioesnibfidgyyou.isnsttit,sithrnvaepogacnrelcgtfou.ohederceIu.tdticsiTsmenhiuptsgicapstcectofeatofeFsdefdiscuaegetccsdnate.io-diroTTninaahnislcemtaaaphmsnemoatnessrnoaicectinsnaebggun(terit2hetdf0soci0oefs7lfepf:inqar8umvs6oapi)vlaar:eicmdot"t.eynTamaifhssenaednnuc,otLritom"earpas(oainelsfcmoLqtppnsuroahTgollaaaaicvssttteieyoidsd.rt arsmwceuaoiltlreahekntotsirioasfonuifstc(hhLCiwoeaproissrwsmkeauayst(&tFr&siagKhc.otoBrwl1mi)nao.cchrItkteeovbhbauaceism(t2iab20nte00sie5io0ngn)3ns.oaibfnt2ishd0cea0aBnr4nov)trfe.seidnmuTtakhthlihaeesett
one.andithasvetyoldroots(seethequotesandcommentsinFalagasetal.(2006)). ttl.(2009)inananalysisofpublicationsinthefield
Rodríguésia61(3):353-358.2010
SciELO/JBRJ
_2 13 14 15 16 17
355
A tirania dofatordeimpacto
Hierarchical attributes Citation frequency h Bias in ecology
systematic
Journal
Impactfactor Trendswithindiscipline
Visibilitybias
Totalnumberofpublication*/year Synergism
Cost*topublfshin&subscribeto
4 local
time
Disseminationbias
Scientificmerit
Publication Lengthofpublication SGteantduesrbibaisas
Numberofauthors
Submissionhistory
Name,status,&genderofauthor Publicationhistoryofauthor
Institutionalstatus
Typeofstudy
1 j
time
submission
Withinstudy Numberofhypotheses f i /
Statlstlca!tests |. I Authorperception
ACScihcgoneiipcfteiacnoacfnecs/eurpeopjfoetrcettsiitonsng+ocfietfhafyetciptoontssihzeeses V' i... i f/ 1I\ OFivleeridnrtaewreprretpartoibolnem
Numberofgraphics
| |
Figure 1 -Aconceptual illustrationofthcpublicationanddisseminationprocess inecologywithpotentialpublication
relatedbiaseslistedtotheright.Attributesateachleveioftheprocessarelistedaswithinstudy(i.e.attributesofthestudy
itselfandsubsequentinterpretationsbytheauthor),publicationlevei(propertiesofthepubhshedstudy),andjoumallevei
(associatcdattributesoftheJoumalwhereinagivenstudyispubhshed).Citationfrequencyreferstothenumberoftimes
a particular publication is Refcrenced in other publications; however, the impact factor attribute ofajoumal is also
calculatedusingmeancitationfrequencyofallpaperspubhshedtlicreinwithinthelasttwoyearsandalsobestconceptualized
asanemergentproperty.Thebiaseslistedaregenerallyrecognizedwithinecologyandsometimesquantitativelyanalyzed
andpubhshed.Nonetheless,fewanalyseshaveexploredeitlierthepotentialrelationshipsbetweenattributesofthepublication
process, as denoted by the dotted arrows, orbetween the attributes ofthe process and the various biases which may
inúuencerelativesuccessorperformanceofastudy/publication,asdenotedbythedouble-headedarrows.Source:Lortie
etci/.(2007: 1250).Rcproducedwiththepermissionofthcpublisher:JohnWileyandSons(Licensenumber: 2482660790074).
ofecology.Theauthor’sgenderalsodoesnotseem theself-citationeffect1.Borsuketal.(2009)suggest
to affectthe rejection rates ofarticles (Aarssen et thatthenumberofauthorscouldreflect:a)theexternai
al. 2008).Nonetheless,Tregenza(2002)reacheda perception that multi-authored works have better
conclusion that is quite interesting: there are quality,astheycontainthecollaborationandvision
differencesrelatedtogenderintheacceptancerate ofdifferentpeople,orb)thatthescientificcommunity
ofworksthatwouldbedifficulttoexplainwithout “perceives"greatermeritinthework;afterall,“how
accepting the ideaofbias. many people could be deceived?”
A significant relationship has been found
between the number of authors of an article and *WhcnIfinishedwritingthisarticle,astrongdebateaboutthchighImpactFactor
thecitationrate(seeTregenza2002).Thissuggests, thataBrazilianjoumalachievcdin2009(3.46)startedtocirculatcintheinternet.
forexample, that when there are more authors on Therewercsomediscussionsthatthisvaluewasonlyreachedbccauscofthehigh
an article the possibilities of self-citation also ngrucmabtefrragoiflisteyifo-fctihteat1iFo.nshionwceinttciavnibzcedcbasyiltyhcmnedniitpoursl.atTchdisacnpditsiotidscwaonslnyosthaouwnsiqtuhee
increase (Borsuk etal. 2009). However, there are episode:sclf-citationsarecurrcntpracticesinmanyintcniationaljoumals.So,
measuresthatmay be usedtoavoidbiascausedby whydowestillwanttobesubjugatcdbythisfailureSystem?
Rodriguéslâ61(3):353-358.2010
SciELO/JBRJ
2 13 14 15 16 17 18
356
Albuquerque, U.P.
Regardlessofthepossibleexplanations,itis journals that have been classified by CAPES as
evidentthatcollaborationinscientificworksbrings possessingimpactarenotnational,couldthispossible
manybenefits,suchasthosecitedabove.Leimu& bias not be an impeditive factor that hampers the
Koricheva (2005) add that this relation increases publicationofBrazilianresearchers?Meneghinietal.
whenthenumberofauthorsexceedsfour.Curiously, (2008)obtainedadisturbingfinding:thereisatendency
these authors also found that interdisciplinary forLatinAmericanauthorstobelesscitedinjournals
collaboration enhances the citation rates of with high impact factors, except when there is
ecological studies, though this is not true if the intemational collaboration. Although the authors
collaborationinvolvesdiffcrentdepartmentswithin arguethatitiscurrentlydifficulttodefinethereasons
thesamcinstitution.Also,instudiesonthefieldof torthis phenomenon, they do suggest two possible
ecology,aninterestingarticlebyLeimu&Koricheva reasons:psychosocialsourcebias(discrimination)or
(2005)Statesthatapositiverelationexistsbetween real differences in the scientific visibility of these
self-citationandexternaicitation. articles. An anonymous reviewer, who was
In these times ofeconomical crisis, there is commentingonthisparagraph,highlightedimportant
an increasing pressure on scientists to increase issues that also deserve our consideration in the
their publication output, and misconduct, such as statement: Hasthistodowithbias,orhastodowith
including authors who did notdirectly participate the fact of Science in Latin America not having
intheproductionofanarticle,hasbecomethenorm. historicallyconcemaboutitsintemationalvisibility?
For more on the consequences ofthis pressure to Inotherwords,isitguiltyofaMachiavelliansystem
increase one s number of publications, see orisitsimplyourhistoriefailure?’(p.4).
Martinsonetal.(2005)andAlbuquerque(2009).
Final considerations
Are citations influenced by the
name of the author or his language? The aforementioned examples, based on
systematic studies, were highlighted to engender
AccordingtoTregenza(1997),“Darwinmay debate without passing premature judgment.
beabetternamethanWallace!”Tregenzasuggests However,thewriter’sinclinationistobeseverely
tashcnaidtenattihsfeiigcninipifutibiclaailnctaotrfieoltnah.teiHolonawsstheivnpeaerxm,iesLtseofibemttuhwe&eaeKunotchrioitrcathiienovnaas cefrvriiotdimecanaitstothfraotanepgvpalbilicuasaa,ttiicooannusssbioanfsgetrhdeeosneIFat.rhceIhtIthFoamsbaebyjeuscudofgfmeeedr
(2005)werenotabletoreproducethesefmdingsin not solely on its scientific merit but also on
oreflaatuitohnortsotinheecaolplhoagbye.tiTchaelsoercdoenrtorfadtihcetolarsytrneasmuletss aotftcroiboupteersatoifotnh,eeatcu.th(osrese,Lnoarttiioenaeltiatly.,2l0h0e7)e.xistence
ostuhgegresatretahsatotfhreerseeiasrcah.need fornewevaluations in With this assumption, we should necessarily
abEIltnneatgenarlngadiucdrstiaAehtgiuim(entoofLnhoire,osriecrtmnehsuoicdstibw&tfyhaEatKnotcigohtsolreoneirisfscmahnhtdp,aehpitvaeneianagvvrs2eesa0nou0lftt5awoB)hnh.ooagerfrTufssnheauicgwsktpehuaenbostoilsasstelie.rsoEthn(nini2lgoan0ynlt0gihi9tsva)hih.esen pIsshmrFceeuee.ilrsamefeMhsn-eiotcumnifrrrsboieetrtseosdihrdvcopeeebiwubsrdysbma,l.tt(siIehAshtebbhhaoeaItulnttimldhedp1eavdai9ceibrc9cse8ttrco)heumeFa;ssatnpuscchllaittooioocsuwsurnrehtl,aootvidgufenbeerrgteedp,h.eoetrnfhteIvdahetradseesli,feisulddcepicigicstloottyecaeniaudloor.ssnmfs,otaaithrnnohaaeddnest
caictcaetipotnerdateisnbeutcoallsoogtyhejporuorbnaabillsit(yTorfeagneanrztiacl2e0b0e2i)n°g thanthequalityorvisibilityofthework.Abt(1998)
TcdpSitoineradusretinahgectdaesarvpntyasteznhoabattftehaeacagx“tuaepPturnaehseoitoesntrts-hoeeaeEfmsfrnfsgtisahllusoeiirfaspatarhidairodcessnisecptaueeilrapaottetnktiaoaihnlfnnitcsgrdbeiipungsarrauctdetirlteiniaoengmtnmiaisonvnwfeaadhthritemeaooinvnagitthhnhoetgear roknSiktifsnnuacsoomthtuwewhbaeslelsesewe,wrrdhdeegaglsceotlee.foaamn(Trcsvsacoiecihntlofadyouintectrdipsirtoueethnlcyoefstirp!ahvliineTelesdhltuatsigoslsnttrtrrfaohedalwettaeuetdebeethyanmnh)trekeceinaencctndoiohsdmwmbbpoeeylfybnveovterxtinScoihoefeitturyhsmstcfelakoiiiyfleienneltn:vtndhiegtesrtohs&tyheefs
trwoenqtwutriietrnOeeinmineenhnaictgofhuooerlnredqitaugharnelglipuataeynrgttEhunoaagtfglietjsh”oih.us.r(mnCpiao.lgn3ssh5it0td)ore.eraficineccgetpttahahwtiomgrohksestr TdoRnhooleynyycoht2ao0rrew7ecdsaehdovuetfrrhaayelu(ptm2aho0pot0eri3rsv)sehttsahhav(etpeymsycraicenthaeoy.dlaTotughhtieehcyoawrloes,srcstkaoitcmeitgaoholteroeyigdcicactilahtllaey.t.
Rodriguésia61(3):353-358.2010
SciELO/JBRJ
cm _2 13 14 15 16 17
) ,!
A tirania do fatordeimpacto 357
political, historical, etc.) influencing an author’s visibility. According to Scarano (2008):“While
decisiontociteastudy,andthisisanobjectofongoing evoking the need of better ways of assessing
interestbyscholarsinvariousfields(seeBrambillaet scientificliterature,theeditorsadmittedtheywould
al. 2006). The latterauthors rcachcd this interesting belyingiftheysaidtheywerenotinterestedintheir
conclusion: “Itwasfoundthroughcontentanalysis, joumaTsimpactfactor.Thisexcmplifiesthatdespite
thatall workscitedan article forthe same reason: a one’sawarenessofthelimitationsandflawsofimpact
description of theoretical and practical methods to factor judgement, it is simultaneously the most
solve problems. However, subjective reasons practical way of producing any type of objective
penneatedtheactofquoting,andonlyamoreaccurate analysisofscientificvalue.” (p. 191).
analysis showed such reasons. It was observed that I have many doubts about the statement
thearticlewasalsocitedbecausetheirauthorsshare above. Everyone can agree thatobjective and fair
acommon paradigmandbuildexpcrtise innetwork evaluation criteria are required. The limits ofany
andcollectively. Thiscouldbe verificd because the measureshouldalsobewidelyappreciatcdtoavoid
citingarticleswerewritteninco-authoredbythegroup, any potential inconsistencies. While I would
incollaborationwithresearchersfromothcrBrazilian sincercly like to end this text with aproposal that
and foreign institutions, and were published in mitigates the shorteomings discussed, I will
nationalandintemationaljoumalswithimportancein concludebyrepeatingthetopicalquestion,“What
thearea)."(p.206). willbethenthebestexistingaltemative?”6andby
Thus,itbecomesmoreevidcntthecomplexity suggesting that this issue should be discussed
ofthe issue and the need to treat it with care and moreopenlywithinthescientificcommunity.
seriousness. Finally, toconclude my discussion on
the IF,Colquhoun(2003)categoricallyStatesthat:
Acknowledgements
"Eugene Garficld, who invented the wrecheted
impactfactor,himselfsaidthatitisnotappropriate The author thanks Conselho Nacional de
for ranking individuais (...). Astonishingly, these DesenvolvimentoCientíficoeTecnológico-CNPq
facts are not known (or are ignored) by some (the Brazilian Research Council) for a
selectioncommittees4."(p.479). produetivity grant. The author also thanks the
Colquhoun (2003) has acuriousexample of reviewers fortheirconstructivecriticism andfor
havingpublishedawork inNature(with an impact statingtheiropinions, whichcausedmetoreflect
factoratthetimeof 27.9)andhavingonlybcencited on my ideas.
57times,whileanothcrworkpublishedinajoumal
oflessimpact(3.1)attainedmorethan400citations References
Thisindicatesthatthepublicationofaworkinahigh Aarssen,L.W.;Tregenza,T.;Budden,A.E.;Lortie,C.J.;
impactjoumal isnotaguarantecthattheworkwill Koricheva, J. & Leimu, R. 2008. Bang for your
achievethemuch-desireddreamoftheauthor:tobe Buck:rejcctionratesandimpactsfactorsinccological
read,cited,andrcmembered.ThedataoftheISI(The joumals.TheOpenEcologyJoumal 1: 14-19.
InstituteofScientificInformation),forNaturein2001 Abt, H.A. 1998. Why some papers have long citation
reinforcethis. In 1999,ofthe858workspublished, lifetimes.Nature395:756-757.
thedatashowthatthe80worksmostcitedcomprised Albuquerque, U.P. 2009. A qualidade das publicações
halfofallcitations!(Colquhoun2003).Thisfindingis científicas-consideraçõesdeumEditordeÁreaaofinal
notnew,ratheritistypical.Asaresull,manybegan domandato.ActaBotnnicaBrasílica23: 292-296.
to adopt the /i-index5 as a measure of authors' Borsuk,R.M.;Budden,A.E.;Leimu,R.;Aarssen,L.W.
&Lortie,C.J.2009.Theinfluenceofgender,national
languageandnumberofauthorson citationrate in
ecology.TheOpenEcologyJoumal2: 25-28.
*Whilcthisfactmaybeknownbymanydcvclopmcntagenciesintheworld,the Brambilla,S.D.S.;Vanz,S.A.S.&Stumpf,I.R.C.2006.
criticismisvalidbecausemanypcoplcremainunawarc. Mapeamento de um artigo produzido na UFRGS:
p5mTphoes/ail-:in‘dTehxiwsalsarpgreuapmoosucndtboyfHiinrfsocnhna(t2i0o0n5:wi1ll65b6c9c)v.oTlhuuatscldhweiatuhtdhiofrícsrlcanntdcsroitneriítas razõesdascitaçõesrecebidas.RevistaEletrônicade
bydiPfcrcntpcoplc.Herc,Iwouldlikctoproposcasinglenumber,the"/»index," BiblioteconomiaeCiênciadaInformação(Número
asaparticularlysimpleandusefulwaytocharacteri/ethescientificoutputofa especial, Iosemestre): 199-208.
rcscarchcr.AseientisthasindexhifhofliisorherNppapenhaveatleasthcitations
cachandtheothcr(Np-li papemhave<hcitationseach”.Somecriticismswere
minaddieviudsueaPosfstchiiesntmiefaicsrucrsecatrocahsosuetspsu“tt”he(Hciummcuhl,at2i00v5c:im1p65a6c9t).anSdereeZlhcvaanngcc(2o0f0a9n) Timhperowvceldl-mkenaoswunrelasil(icnxgsamipnldclsimiintDatoinongscotftalh.c(2IF00h5a)v)e.ledlotnniiyproposalsfor
forcriticismsandsuggcstionsforimprovementofthe/i-indcx.
Rodriguésia61(3):353-358.2010
SciELO/JBRJ
2 13 14 15 16 17 18
358
Albuquerque, U.P.
Cassey,P.&Blackbum.T.M. 2003.Publication rejection Leimu,R&Koricheva,J.2005.Doesscientificcollaboration
among ecologists.TrendsinEcologyandEvolution increasetheimpactofecologicalartides?BioScience
18: 375-376. 55: 438-443.
Cassey,P.& Blackbuni,T.M. 2004.Publicationandrejection Lortie, C.J; Aarssen, L.W.; Budden, A.E.; Koricheva,
amongsuccessfulecologists.BioScience54:234-239. J.K.; Leimu, R. & Tregenza, T. 2007. Publication
Colquhoun,D.2003.Challengingthetyrannyofimpact biasandmeritinecology.Oikos 116: 1247-1253.
factors. Nature423:479. Martinson, B.C.,Anderson, M.S. &de Vries, R. 2005.
Dong,P.;Loh,M. &andMondry,A.2005The"impact Scientistsbehavingbadly.Nature435:737-738.
factor”revisited. Biomedical Digital Libraries2:7: Meneghini, R.; Packer, A.L. & Nassi-Caló, L. 2008.
doúlO.l186/1742-5581-2-7. Articles byLatin American authors in prestigious
Falagas,M.E.;George,M.;Zouglakis,G.M.;Paraskevi, joumals have fewer citations. PLoS ONE 3(11):
Ai.mpa&ctPafpaacstotramoaftaskciie,ntRif.iNc.jo2u0m0a6l.s.TrMeanydos Cinlintihce Ruiz,e3M8.0A4;.dGorie:c1o0,.1O3.7T.1/&jouBmraaill.ep,oDne..M0.0023080094..Fatorde
Proceedings81: 1401-1402. impacto:importânciaeinfluêncianomeioeditorial,
Figà-Talamanca,A.2007.Strengthsandweaknessesof Caacraddiêomviacsoceulcaiernt2í4f.icPop..Re2v7i3s-t2a78Br.asileiradeCirurgia
cAiuttahtoiornsiVndoilcuesmeancdomipmiplaacttiofnac,toProsr.tClhanadptPerres7s. LTthde. TregeNnaztau,reT.38159:974.8D0.arwinabetternamethanWallace?
Available in <http://www.portlandpress.com/pp/
bAcocoeksss/oonnl3i0nJeu/nQeAH20E1E0/.001/0083/0010083.pdf> TregeTnrzean,dTs.i2n0E02c.olGoegnyde&rEbivaosluintitohner1e7f:er3e4e9i-n3g5p0r.ocess?
Kokko, H. & Sutherland, W.J. 1999. What do impact ScaraBnoot,âFn.icRa.3210:081.89W-h19y4.publish?RevistaBrasileirade
Hirscfha,ctJo.rEs.t2e0ll05u.s?ATnreiend1e4x:t3o82qu-a3n8t4i.fyan individuaTs Simkiyn°,uMc.iVte.!&CoRmopylcehxowSdyhsutreym,sV1.4P:.226090-32.74R.eadbefore
oNscfaitAeimnotenirafliiccAacra1e0ds2ee:amr1yc6ho5f6o9Su-ct1ip6eu5nt7c.2es.ProofcteheedUinnigtsedoSftatthees Zhangf,orCe-xTc.e2s0s0c9i.taTthioense.-IPnLdeoxS,OcNomEp4l:emee54n2t9i.ndgotih:e10/.i-1I3n7de1x/
joumal.pone.0005429.
Artigorecebidoem 02/05/2010. Aceitoparapublicaçãoem05/08/2010.
Rodriguésia61(3):353-358.2010
SciELO/JBRJ
2 13 14 15 16 17