If review, tenure and promotion continue to depend on impact factor, we perpetuate a skewed incentive system. An important study by @emckiernan13 @juancommander @MeredithNiles1 @l_matthia et al. #RPT @DORAssessment https://t.co/Xqj8AbY6hx via @PeerJPreprints
We are in @NatureNews! "Impact factors are still widely used in academic evaluations". Quick facts: 40% of R-type unis mention the JIF, of those: 83% support using it; 61% associate it with "quality" https://t.co/rKnpjZEqgY or just read preprint: https://t.co/32HtGs460m https://t.co/d7v71wF2Wu
Those interested in our preprint on the Use of the Impact Factor in Tenure Evaluations https://t.co/32HtGs460m may want to check out the Supplementary file that contains all the actual mentions. Read exactly what guidelines say about the JIF! https://t.co/LpUpHLwQus #scholcommlab
Those interested in our preprint on the Use of the Impact Factor in Tenure Evaluations https://t.co/32HtGs460m may want to check out the Supplementary file that contains all the actual mentions. Read exactly what guidelines say about the JIF! https://t.co/LpUpHLwQus #scholcommlab
Interesting new preprint on impact factors in evaluation https://t.co/XleSVheUF5
Summary - 40% of research-intensive US/CA universities explicitly discuss JIFs in their promotion/review guidance, almost all positively, most see it as a mark of quality, none strongly sceptical.
Interesting article on university reliance on journal impact factors (JIF) in evaluations. Funny that the acronym they use is JIF, like the peanut butter - it's a "sticky" metric & can cause severe adverse reactions: https://t.co/tFvc1ryhcb