影响因子谬误
The Impact Factor Fallacy.
作者信息
Paulus Frieder M, Cruz Nicole, Krach Sören
机构信息
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Social Neuroscience Lab, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
出版信息
Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 20;9:1487. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487. eCollection 2018.
The use of the journal impact factor (JIF) as a measure for the quality of individual manuscripts and the merits of scientists has faced significant criticism in recent years. We add to the current criticism in arguing that such an application of the JIF in policy and decision making in academia is based on false beliefs and unwarranted inferences. To approach the problem, we use principles of deductive and inductive reasoning to illustrate the fallacies that are inherent to using journal-based metrics for evaluating the work of scientists. In doing so, we elaborate that if we judge scientific quality based on the JIF or other journal-based metrics we are either guided by invalid or weak arguments or in fact consider our uncertainty about the quality of the work and not the quality itself.
近年来，将期刊影响因子（JIF）用作衡量单篇稿件质量和科学家功绩的指标受到了诸多批评。我们加入到当前的批评行列中，认为在学术界的政策和决策中如此应用JIF是基于错误观念和无端推断。为解决这一问题，我们运用演绎推理和归纳推理的原则来说明使用基于期刊的指标评估科学家工作所固有的谬误。在此过程中，我们详细阐述了，如果我们基于JIF或其他基于期刊的指标来评判科研质量，那么我们要么受到无效或无力论据的引导，要么实际上考虑的是我们对工作质量的不确定性，而非质量本身。
Zotero 插件