Comments on: The secret inner workings of PLoS ONE revealed https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/ Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:57:51 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 By: MINLI https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538809 Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:57:51 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538809 Hi people. I just created a poll for the estimate of the first PloS ONE impact factor.

please give your guess at
http://andrew.cmu.edu/user/minlix/poll_plosone.html

thanks 🙂

]]> By: Peter Binfield (Managing Editor, PLoS ONE) https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538808 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:29:42 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538808 @Lois – good news. We cover the whole of science, which is why you found one of our dinosaur papers. However, in reality the bulk of our articles are currently in medical/biomedical areas. We have individual RSS feeds for each of 50 different subject areas, so you could look at only specific feeds if that is better for you.

@Jeremy – true. But Article Level Metrics is about a lot more than citation figures. Plus, the Web of Science (aka SCI) is not very comprehensive (it only covers approx 9,000 out of approx 25,000 journals) and so misses large numbers of citations from its database.

]]> By: Lois Wingerson https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538807 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:13:37 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538807 Many thanks for pointing out this very important information.

The Advisory Board of medical specialists at SearchMedica, the custom search engine for health care professionals, have been considering whether to retain PLoS One among the journals on our list of recommended authoritative sources, because searches occasionally retrieve articles from PLos One that are of no medical relevance. For instance, a recent search on the psychiatric term “flight of ideas” retrieved something about a flying dinosaur.

Understanding the goals and advantages of this journal help to support the Advisory Board’s general opinion that we should retain the journal despite these rogue results. In fact, it is now obvious that it would be a serious mistake to exclude it.

Yours,

Lois Wingerson
Content Manager
SearchMedica

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538806 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:57:02 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538806 PLoS ONE will never have a high IF value because of the way it operates. The other PLoS journals are totally different in this regard. PLoS ONE is explicitly set up in a way that makes sense for a certain (very worthy and important) mission, but as a result of the way it intentionally works, while there will be great advantages, it simply can’t have a high IF.

Yet, PLoS ONE will be an important journal and it has already published numerous very important papers.

]]> By: sczhang https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538805 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:41:30 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538805 It would be better for a journal like PLOS ONE have both SCI IF and article-level metrics.

]]> By: Jeremy https://gregladen.com/blog/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538804 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:49:25 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/06/26/the-secret-inner-workings-of-p/#comment-538804 It has always been possible to use Science Citation Index to do article-level impact analysis. Just that very few people can be bothered.

]]>