[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: it's back!
David Marjanovic writes:
> > What love?
> You with your <phhh!!!> day job!
> Other people's worth and worthiness is judged, nay, calculated by
> their impact factor, and Nature has an impact factor of 27, while,
> say, the JVP had an impact factor of 1.649 in 2005. That's why
> everyone craves to publish in Nature [...]
Sure, I know all that -- but it all seems like more reason to _hate_
S&N, not love them.
> [...], that wretched extended-abstract publication* with those
> cursed coarse-grained photos.
Case closed, m'lud :-)
> * Though the recent phenomenon of 95-page supplementary information
> has eliminated a large part of that particular problem.
Not really. Supplementary information is still treated very much as
second-class, and seems to get quietly lost with horrifying frequency.
For example, I've not been able to get hold of the supplementary
information for Curry Rogers's description of _Rapetosaurus_ in
Actually, I can't think of any way that S&N actually benefit science
(at least, palaeo). We'd all be better off if they ceased to exist
[Disclaimer ... none of that should be construed as meaning that I
would turn down the chance to have my own stuff appear in them given
the chance :-) ]
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "We don't watch _Batman_ as a documentary on the LAPD" -- Luis
Chiappe's comment on the inaccuracies in the _Jurassic Park_