Skip to main content

The spirit of the San Francisco DORA in scientific meetings

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for avoiding the use of journal impact factors in evaluations of scientists and their contributions. I very much agree with the idea, and so do the many signatories of the declaration, both personal and institutional. Impact-factor fascination syndrome (IFFS, the very thing DORA wants to counter) is however spreading and thriving in the research community.

I would propose to extend the spirit of DORA to scientific meetings: Speakers in adhering research meetings should avoid quoting journal names in what they show. Nowadays, the names of one or two authors and the year should suffice to find any paper, if there is no arXiv reference for instance. It sounds sensible that when speakers describe their work, they show the reference of where to find the relevant publication. But we all know that showing references to high-impact-factor journals is used to impress the audience (not to mention journal covers), and I can perceive myself biased in my appreciation of what I am seeing in a talk by the names of journals I see mentioned. Well, if you are actually listening to a scientific talk, there you have one of the authors directly explaining the work and its relevance. Why should you as audience delegate judgment to editors and referees of journals, when you are seeing it there first hand?

Of course, sensible and experienced researchers are used to separate the wheat from the chaff, but we should be aware of our research cuture, and what we are transmitting to students. The impact-factor-fascination syndrome is propagating alarmingly, and has been for quite some time. I am among the quite Quixotic researchers that think that we should actively fight it. This is one possibility.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The European Union and fundamental research

The European Commission (EC) has sought feedback from the research community base in the form of a survey for its Horizon Europe research plan. It can be found in   https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/659c5eea-5f1d-341b-482e-92b53222f619   The overall strategy is already decided, in terms of basic themes etc, and the questions in the survey are already quite specific. Here is a general comment on EU research as funded by the EC. It relates to fundamental research as opposed to directed or applied.   The framework programs (as all EC endeavors) are meant to complement national efforts and not duplicate them (as a fundamental mandate of relevant treaties). Blue-skies fundamental research is left for national programs, and  is therefore not EC funded, except for the Marie Curie program with the training and mobility argument, and the European Research Council (ERC) with the excellence argument. The latter is essentia...
Post a Comment
Read more

On the shifting paradigm for research literature

Background. The way research progress is shared and published has been changing during the last decades from the old paradigm that revolved around the fact that publication had to be on paper. The transformation is remarkably slow, however. We are clinging on to basic concepts that were natural for the old paper model (e.g. enormous amounts of journals) but are now of little or no advantage. Among other reasons, the observed inertia is explained by the fact that the traditional business model for scientific literature is ideal for the established publishers. This model has been discussed by many (regularly in The Economist, for instance), whereby publicly-funded researchers produce the content and most of the quality control, and publicly-funded libraries pay juicy subscription fees for researchers to be able to access the research of others. Add to it the partly monopolistic character of the business (an author of an article can choose where to publish, but a reader of that article c...
Post a Comment
Read more