Category Elife impact factor 2018

Elife impact factor 2018

Together, these organizations provided the initial funding to support the business and publishing operations.

Scholarly Communication @ Temple

The journal opposes the over-reliance on the impact factor by the scientific community. We tried to prevent people who do the impact factors from giving us one. They gave us one anyway a year earlier than they should have. Don't ask me what it is because I truly don't want to know and don't care. Most research articles published in the journal include an "eLife digest", a non-technical summary of the research findings aimed at a lay audience. Since Decemberthe journal has been sharing a selection of the digests on the blog publishing platform Medium.

During peer review process, eLife encourages the reviewers to discuss a manuscript and agree on a common recommendation. In JuneeLife announced that it would try innovative peer review model for some submissions where the editorial decision to send a manuscript out for review is tantamount to offering publication to that manuscript, thereby putting the authors in control of publication [15] after editorial screening has been passed.

Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses. Home FAQ Contact. Open access. Impact factor.

Bibcode : Natur. Retrieved Thomson Reuters. Chemical Abstracts Service. American Chemical Society. Archived from the original on Web of Science Science ed. Initiative for Open Citations. Retrieved 6 April Impact factors are a relatively recent phenomenon. The idea came about in the s, when University of Pennsylvania linguist Eugene Garfield started compiling his Science Citation Index now known as the Web of Scienceand needed to decide which journals to include.

elife impact factor 2018

He eventually published the numbers he had collected in a separate publication, called the Journal Citation Report JCRas a way for librarians to compare journals JCR is now owned by Clarivate Analytics. Now, impact factors are so important that it is very difficult for new journals to attract submissions before they have one. And the number is being used not just to compare journals, but to assess scholars. JIF is the most prominent impact factor, but it is not the only one.

InElsevier launched CiteScorewhich is based on citations from the past three years. Academics have long taken issue with how impact factors are used to evaluate scholarship. They argue that administrators and even scholars themselves incorrectly believe that the higher the impact factor, the better the research.

Critics also note that impact factors can be manipulated. Indeed, every year, Clarivate Analytics suspends journals who have tried to game the system. This year they suppressed the impact factors for 20 journalsincluding journals who cited themselves too often and journals who engaged in citation stacking. As a result of these criticisms, some journals and publishers have also started to emphasize article-level metrics or alternative metrics instead.

Others, such as the open access publisher eLife, openly state on their website that they do not support the impact factor. Another recent project, HuMetricsHSSis trying to get academic departments, particularly those in the humanities and social sciences, to measure scholars by how much they embody five core values: collegiality, quality, equity, openness, and community. While these developments are promising, it seems unlikely that the journal impact factor will go away anytime soon. What do you think about the use of impact factors to measure academic performance?

Let us know in the comments. You must be logged in to post a comment. Leave a Reply Cancel reply You must be logged in to post a comment.We use cookies to offer you a better experience, personalize content, tailor advertising, provide social media features, and better understand the use of our services.

We use cookies to make interactions with our website easy and meaningful, to better understand the use of our services, and to tailor advertising.

For further information, including about cookie settings, please read our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies. We value your privacy. Asked 7th Jul, Ali Kermani. PNAS or elife? I am about to submit my manuscript. I was considering either PNAS or elife. Both journals are a good match for my research area.

Personally what journal would you submit your paper in terms of reputation, higher impact and etc? Academic Journals. Most recent answer. Shahab A. Kerman University of Medical Sciences. I know several professors that prefer to publish their articles in eLife than a higher impact journal. Since it published very interesting articles and also contains new features it mentioned before. Also, you have to notice it is a very new journal I think.

Another important thing is your place! Yes, in some countries it is not very important that how your article will be seen, just how many articles do you have and what was it's IF!

Good luck. Popular Answers 1. Yashar Zeighami.

Elife

McGill University. I had review experience with both and eLife reviews are both more fair and more relevant in my opinion. Also the reviewer comments and your responses will be published which makes the process more transparent.

While academia is stuck on impact factor, it doesn't reflect the quality of the journal, it measures trendiness. All Answers 5. Manoj Kumar Tiwari. Shri Shankaracharya Group of Institutions.The Impact Factor of eLife is 7. The Impact Factor IF or Journal Impact Factor JIF of an academic journal is a scientometric index that reflects the yearly average number of citations that recent articles published in a given journal received.

It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factors are often deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years Note that impact factors are reported in ; they cannot be calculated until all of the publications have been processed by the indexing agency.

In addition to the 2-year Impact Factor, the 3-year Impact Factor and 5-year Impact Factor can provide further insights into the impact of eLife. Impact Factor Trend Prediction System provides an open, transparent, and straightforward platform to help academic researchers Predict future journal impact and performance through the wisdom of crowds. Impact Factor Trend Prediction System displays the exact community-driven Data without secret algorithms, hidden factors, or systematic delay.

An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media—print and electronic. Open Access stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse.

With Open Access, researchers can read and build on the findings of others without restriction. Much scientific and medical research is paid for with public funds.

Open Access allows taxpayers to see the results of their investment. The Publication History of eLife covers ongoing. It is impossible to get a true picture of impact using a single metric alone, so a basket of metrics is needed to support informed decisions. Ranking by Impact Factor. Ranking by Popularity. Academic Accelerator Impact Factor Database. Impact Factor Database Search Engine.

Academic Accelerator Impact Factor eLife.Once production of your article has started, you can track the status of your article via Track Your Accepted Article.

elife impact factor 2018

Life Sciences is an international journal publishing articles that emphasize the molecularcellularand functional basis of therapy. The journal emphasizes the understanding of mechanism that is relevant to all aspects of human disease and translation to patients. All articles are rigorously reviewed All articles are rigorously reviewed.

Life Sciences

The Journal favors publication of full-length papers where modern scientific technologies are used to explain molecularcellular and physiological mechanisms. Articles that merely report observations are rarely accepted. Recommendations from the Declaration of Helsinki or NIH guidelines for care and use of laboratory animals must be adhered to.

Articles should be written at a level accessible to readers who are non-specialists in the topic of the article themselves, but who are interested in the research. The Journal welcomes reviews on topics of wide interest to investigators in the life sciences. We particularly encourage submission of brief, focused reviews containing high-quality artwork and require the use of mechanistic summary diagrams. Manuscripts should present novel preclinical findings addressing questions of biological significance to human disease.

Studies that fail to do so may be rejected without review. Quantitative conclusions must be based on truly quantitative methods. Life Sciences does not publish work on the actions of biological extracts of unknown chemical composition. Compounds studied must be of known chemical structure and concentration. The study must be reproducible; materials used must be available to other researchers so they can repeat the experiment.

Clinical studies may be considered if they expand understanding of mechanism, but the journal does not encourage clinical trial reports. Four common reasons for rejection include: out of scope the manuscript does not conform to the goal of identification of mechanisms related to therapy for human disease ; too preliminary manuscript is based on a limited amount of experimental data diminishing significance ; lack of novelty manuscript is well done but does not address a significant question ; unidentified structure actions of biological extracts of unknown chemical composition.

Search in:. Home Journals Life Sciences. ISSN: Life Sciences. Editor-in-Chief: L. View Editorial Board. CiteScore: 3. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a given year e. Impact Factor: 3. Time to first decision: 1. Submit Your Paper. Supports Open Access. View Articles.Objectively, the goal of publication is the dissemination of new research data. The payoff to both science and society from publication is increased knowledge about the natural world; the payoff to the individuals associated with the work is through reputation.

Publishing is not the only way to get a good reputation. A scientist can also acquire a good reputation through teaching, training, commentary, and public outreach. A problem though is that the payoff associated with research has become disproportionately large — not in terms of status, as scientists will always ultimately be judged by their competence at the generation of new knowledge — but in terms of career prospects.

We rank scientists solely in terms of their research output. Consequently, two things have happened. A desperate need to publish new findings before others do. And a desperate need to publish new findings in a small cabal of journals which are thought to contain better-quality work than others. Publishing first emphasises that the discovery is yours. Neither of these factors serves science, or the scientific community.

Rushing to publish first encourages sloppy work, if not outright fraud; seeking to publish only in a small clique of journals encourages overhyping, overinterpretation, and sensationalism — and probably also a diminished diversity of research effort, as popular areas will be deemed more valuable simply by virtue of having a larger audience and thereby a higher probability of citation.

In addition, the varying speed at which peer review is conducted can mean that a paper is rejected from a journal before publication simply because a competitor has completed peer review quicker and the journal no longer deems the story of value.

It is a problem which has led to the reproducibility crisis and worrying levels of disillusionment if not actual mental health issues in young scientists. It has also led to journal editors inadvertently wielding a huge amount of power over the careers of research scientists. The physics community has pointed the way to a possible solution in its early adoption of preprints as part of the publishing paradigm. Preprint servers enable the publication of non-peer-reviewed work online for community viewing and scrutiny.

The indications are that this is catching on, and preprints are even beginning to be cited in research papers before their final publication. What then is the actual point of peer review? Quality control is clearly important to remedy errors of fact, attribution, and interpretation. But peers reviewers are not the whole community of peers, and potentially not even an unbiased and representative sample.

There thus exists a substantial role in science for a post-publication process, i. This is much like the crisis that faces mainstream journalism in the age of blogs and social media. But in science, the principle function of journals — via editors and the unpaid reviewers who are effectively adjunct staff — is to provide a seal of peer-reviewed validation.

In the digital age, owning a printing press is no longer an asset when scientists can upload their manuscripts for public viewing. And if community-led feedback became widespread, then the opinions of peers becomes of less value. Or, taking it a step further, just started putting their results on their personal or departmental website and then publicising it through social media?

In practice, having a central repository of uploaded work like bioRxiv is probably preferable to a decentralised system. But either way, the preprint then would become a kind of living document, annotated or updated or refined on the basis of reader feedback. The difference between a preprint and a paper would begin to melt away — or in fact, these living documents would then surpass printed papers as they would be more up to date and accurate.

Exactly like Wikipedia usurping printed encyclopaedias. Key to this vision, and probably the stumbling block to its realisation, is the need for democratisation of peer review.

While in principle community-led research assessment is desirable, in practice what holds this back is that reviewing papers is seen as a duty — people generally do it only if they are asked to because it is time-consuming, cognitively intensive, and serves little direct benefit or acknowledgement to the reviewer.Note: The impact factor shown here is equivalent to citescore and is, therefore, used as a replacement for the same.

Citescore is produced by Scopus, and can be a little higher or different compared to the impact factor produced by Journal Citation Report. It is published by eLife Sciences Publications. The overall rank of eLife is SCImago Journal Rank is an indicator, which measures the scientific influence of journals. It considers the number of citations received by a journal and the importance of the journals from where these citations come.

SJR acts as an alternative to the Journal Impact Factor or an average number of citations received in last 2 years. This journal has an h-index of The best quartile for this journal is Q1.

It is used for the recognition of journals, newspapers, periodicals, and magazines in all kind of forms, be it print-media or electronic. The impact factor IF of eLife is 6. The impact factor IFalso denoted as Journal impact factor JIFof an academic journal is a measure of the yearly average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. It means 93 articles of this journal have more than 93 number of citations. The h-index is a way of measuring the productivity and citation impact of the publications.

An ISSN is a unique code of 8 digits. It's publishing house is located in United Kingdom. Coverage history of this journal is as following: ongoing. The organization or individual who handles the printing and distribution of printed or digital publications is known as Publisher.

United Kingdom. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

elife impact factor 2018

Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research U. Publication Type. Subject Area, Categories, Scope. Impact Factor. Composite Interfaces. Management Revue. Acta Botanica Hungarica. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Supplement. Packaging News. Psychiatric Quarterly. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.


Fenrisar

Comments

Brarisar Posted on23:47 - 21.10.2020

Wacker, welche Wörter..., der glänzende Gedanke