Open AccessImpact Factors
Author(s) -
J. Roberto F. Arruda,
Robin Champieux,
Martha Kyrillidou,
Mary Ellen K. Davis,
Richard Gedye,
Laurie Goodman,
Neil Jacobs,
David Ross,
Stuart C. Taylor
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
open scholarship initiative proceedings
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2473-6236
DOI - 10.13021/g87k5j
Subject(s) - readability , openness to experience , visibility , quality (philosophy) , key (lock) , scholarship , publishing , public relations , tracking (education) , political science , marketing , business , computer science , sociology , psychology , social psychology , law , computer security , epistemology , pedagogy , geography , philosophy , meteorology , programming language
Tracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?