Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeImplications
Posted by DavidGoodman on 23 Dec 2006 at 23:35 GMT
Papers are often judged by the journals they appear in, whether informally, or by relative IF of the journal compared to others in the field.
This has been often criticised.
Such criticism is not justified.
This is not the least suprising, but it is very good to have such a clear validation.
RE: Implications
dsingh replied to DavidGoodman on 16 Jan 2007 at 18:16 GMT
Why is the criticism not justified. Good science is good science regardless of where it is published, and vice versa. Certain journals have built a reputation, rightfully so, mostly based on editorial guidelines.
However, if one is to apply long tail theory to scientific publishing, anyone can publish quality science in the PLoS journals or the BMC journals, this making good publication opportunities available to a larger audience (and the opportunity to access that science). This makes it possible for those historically shut out of the somewhat clique-y publication process to get their research noticed and discussed. I see all of these as positive facts.
The paper is certainly a good one. The results are not surprising. I hope that in a decade, the trend changes and there is a longer, higher tail of scientific publication.