shakedown.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A community for live music fans with roots in the jam scene. Shakedown Social is run by a team of volunteers (led by @clifff and @sethadam1) and funded by donations.

Administered by:

Server stats:

263
active users

#impactfactor

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
bladderbot<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://neuromatch.social/@elduvelle" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>elduvelle</span></a></span> Sure - let’s add to the problem of reproducibility (retraction rates are already much higher for high-impact journals, incl. Nature – Brembs et al 2013 "Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank." Frontiers in human Neuroscience) by adding AI peer reviewers and watch academic publishing enshittify further. <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/reproducibility" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>reproducibility</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/impactfactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>impactfactor</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/ScientificJournals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScientificJournals</span></a></p>
Björn Brembs<p>The killer quote! Prestigious institutions and prestigious journals drive irreproducibility in the life sciences - well, at least in this particular sample.</p><p><a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.07.663460v2" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/20</span><span class="invisible">25.07.07.663460v2</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/reproducibility" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>reproducibility</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/impactfactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>impactfactor</span></a></p>
eLife<p>Over 100 organisations still consider eLife papers when evaluating research contributions since losing our Impact Factor: <a href="https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/56910cbc/research-organisations-still-consider-elife-papers-in-funding-and-hiring-decisions?utm_source=mastodon&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=organic" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">elifesciences.org/inside-elife</span><span class="invisible">/56910cbc/research-organisations-still-consider-elife-papers-in-funding-and-hiring-decisions?utm_source=mastodon&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=organic</span></a></p><p>Help us rally more community support for research reform and let us know your funder or institution’s stance on the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a> 💬</p>
El Duvelle<p>Following up on the <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/eLife" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>eLife</span></a> / <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/Clarivate" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Clarivate</span></a> saga, DORA has posted a statement: <br><a href="https://sfdora.org/2024/11/25/clarivates-actions-regarding-elife-doras-response/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">sfdora.org/2024/11/25/clarivat</span><span class="invisible">es-actions-regarding-elife-doras-response/</span></a></p><p>extracts:</p><blockquote><p>"This development reinforces how a commercial entity such as Clarivate, can, through its ownership of scholarly databases and indices, hold the academic community to ransom. Clarivate’s announcement is disappointing as it both punishes innovation in peer review and disregards the important role of authors in deciding how and where their research should be published."</p><p>"As funders and institutions increasingly move away from using single metrics to assess research(ers), the role of Journal Impact Factors is becoming increasingly irrelevant."</p><p>"We therefore support eLife and encourage it to continue its innovation and encourage other journals to consider doing the same."</p></blockquote><p>Go <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/eLife" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>eLife</span></a>, Go AWAY <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a>!</p><p><a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/Academia" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Academia</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/Publication" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Publication</span></a> <a href="https://neuromatch.social/tags/ScientificPublishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScientificPublishers</span></a></p>
Matt Willemsen<p>COMMENTARY<br>Is This Journal Legit? Open Access and Predatory Publishers<br><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/this-journal-legit-open-access-and-predatory-publishers-2024a10009pv?src=rss&amp;form=fpf" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">medscape.com/viewarticle/this-</span><span class="invisible">journal-legit-open-access-and-predatory-publishers-2024a10009pv?src=rss&amp;form=fpf</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/publication" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>publication</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OpenAccess</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Predatory" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Predatory</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/paywall" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>paywall</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PeerReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PeerReview</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/license" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>license</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/copyright" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>copyright</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/fees" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>fees</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/curation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>curation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a></p>
Jan R. Boehnke<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@DanielleVossebeld" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>DanielleVossebeld</span></a></span> Most benign interpretation:</p><p>They are working down an <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a> list or so. I see people do that without any regard for the remit of journals.</p><p>There are all kinds of less wholesome explanations...</p>
petersuber<p>What's wrong with this picture? "To diversify academic publishing, strategies should focus on improving the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a> of Global <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/South" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>South</span></a> journals."<br><a href="https://gh.bmj.com/content/8/12/e013111" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">gh.bmj.com/content/8/12/e01311</span><span class="invisible">1</span></a></p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DEI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>DEI</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JournalImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>JournalImpactFactor</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>JIF</span></a></p>
MAHanson<p>Lastly let’s talk <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a> (IF). Reminder: IF = avg cites/doc articles in a journal receive within 1st 2y. IF values total cites.</p><p>IFs are going up 📈: they’re literally being inflated like a currency. So if you see a journal celebrating its year-over-year increase in IF, you’ve gotta normalize for inflation. This inflation accompanies the huge crush of special issues from earlier. But(!) a citation network-adjusted rank (Scimago Journal Rank, SJR) hasn’t changed accordingly. What gives? 9/n</p>
PLOS Biology<p>Analysis of 10k peer reviews reveals that those for high-<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/journals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>journals</span></a> pay more attention to Materials/Methods but less to Presentation/Reporting (those for low-<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>JIF</span></a> journals emphasize solutions) @annasvrn @eggersnsf @ste_mueller &amp;co <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PLOSBiology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PLOSBiology</span></a> <a href="https://plos.io/45tDVzz" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">plos.io/45tDVzz</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p>
petersuber<p>More evidence that some <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>publishers</span></a> set <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>APCs</span></a> based on <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/prestige" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>prestige</span></a> &amp; what they think the market will bear, not production <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/costs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>costs</span></a>.<br><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/society/neuroimage-elsevier-editorial-board-journal-profit/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">thenation.com/article/society/</span><span class="invisible">neuroimage-elsevier-editorial-board-journal-profit/</span></a></p><p>"<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Elsevier" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Elsevier</span></a> told editors that fees were based on a journal’s reputation —specifically, their <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a>. As the editors grew the journal’s prestige, Elsevier increased the publication fee by about 15%…Keilholz…concluded that the incentives for <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ForProfit" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ForProfit</span></a> publishers were not aligned with 'what we want for science.' "</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/NeuroImage" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>NeuroImage</span></a></p>
MAHanson<p>Following the delisting of MDPI's flagship journal IJERPH from Clarivate/Web of Science, I've penned a perspective. Hopefully helps folks understand where this came from &amp; why it's such a big deal for <a href="https://scicomm.xyz/tags/MDPI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>MDPI</span></a>, and the implications moving forward. :googlescholar: </p><p>For perspective: IJERPH publishes more articles/y than PLOS One 📊🤯 </p><p>See: <a href="http://bit.ly/ClarivateMDPI" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="">bit.ly/ClarivateMDPI</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p><a href="https://scicomm.xyz/tags/AcademicChatter" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AcademicChatter</span></a> <a href="https://scicomm.xyz/tags/PredatoryPublishing" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PredatoryPublishing</span></a> <a href="https://scicomm.xyz/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a></p>
Dr. Robert M Flight<p>Happy holidays!</p><p>I was looking at my personal projects folder, and noticed this old analysis of the distribution of journal impact factors, that was inspired after reading the 2016 paper from Larivi`ere et al.</p><p>I decided I should write it up as a proper blog post, and here it is.</p><p>TL;DR: If we aren't going to abolish them, maybe at least log-transform them first.</p><p>Journal Impact Factor Distributions<br><a href="https://rmflight.github.io/posts/2022-12-25-journal-impact-factor-distributions/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">rmflight.github.io/posts/2022-</span><span class="invisible">12-25-journal-impact-factor-distributions/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a></p>
Norbert Holstein<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://scicomm.xyz/@nigronia" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>nigronia</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://mathstodon.xyz/@Ndolo" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>Ndolo</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://dhub.social/@dandelionhub" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>dandelionhub</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/academicchatter" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>academicchatter</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/academiamemes" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>academiamemes</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/wahandisifoundation" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>wahandisifoundation</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/wakenya" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>wakenya</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/africanresearchers" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>africanresearchers</span></a></span> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Scientists" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Scientists</span></a> who are not dependent on evaluation on the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ImpactFactor" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ImpactFactor</span></a> and those sitting in evaluation committees have most power to change things.<br>However, esp. younger scientists are still trapped and mustn't be punished to make a point.</p>