hey everyone -
I was hoping to find a link to an updated list using the search tool, but nothing more current than 2005 popped up for me.
does anyone have a good link? if it's not a big hassle, would you please post it here?
thank you
A
0
current impact factor list?
Started by aimikins, Feb 23 2009 02:21 PM
19 replies to this topic
#1
-
- Moderator
-
- 113 posts
Sunflower
Posted 23 February 2009 - 02:21 PM
"it is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education" -A.E.
#3
-
- Active Members
-
- 482 posts
Metaller Scientist
Posted 25 February 2009 - 06:45 AM
bioforum, on Feb 23 2009, 05:46 PM, said:
Check your PM.
I wish you had sent it here so we could download it too. I need it too.
#4
-
- Active Members
-
- 80 posts
Enthusiast
Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:55 PM
Yes, I would also like the list to find out what top journals I won't be publishing in this year :-D.
#6
-
- Active Members
-
- 1,371 posts
Veteran
Posted 14 April 2009 - 07:10 AM
to all:
impact list check this website. I use this one for the impact lists. The latest list is 2007 list, however they do not make seperate lists for different catergories.
If you want a list that uses different categories you need to check this one, but thats only updated till 2003-2006 depending on the category.
good luck with it.
impact list check this website. I use this one for the impact lists. The latest list is 2007 list, however they do not make seperate lists for different catergories.
If you want a list that uses different categories you need to check this one, but thats only updated till 2003-2006 depending on the category.
good luck with it.
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.
#9
-
- Active Members
-
- 17 posts
Calvin*
Posted 17 September 2009 - 07:03 AM
Hey guyz.... I have got 2008 Impact Factor list pdf arranged alphabetically. Hope its useful
Attached File(s)
-
Impact_Factor_2008.pdf (344.28K)
Number of downloads: 271
"In my opinion, we don't devote nearly enough scientific research to finding a cure for jerks"-Calvin
#10
-
- Active Members
-
- 458 posts
Veteran
Posted 19 November 2009 - 08:44 AM
How come they don't mention PLOS One?
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.
A. Einstein
A. Einstein
#11
-
- Active Members
-
- 458 posts
Veteran
Posted 20 November 2009 - 08:51 AM
Well, I'll answer my own question 
.
In was told that PLOS One was still too young.
.In was told that PLOS One was still too young.
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.
A. Einstein
A. Einstein
#13
-
- Active Members
-
- 458 posts
Veteran
Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:46 AM
One question for those who review articles. Do you take the journal (and its IP) into consideration?
I asked because I reviewed an average paper recently. It was OK (but only OK) and I accepted it with revisions. Much later (and thanks to this topic), I found out that the journal in which this paper had been submitted had a pretty high impact factor. I wonder if I should have accepted the paper now. I don't think it was interesting enough to go in such a high ranked journal.
I asked because I reviewed an average paper recently. It was OK (but only OK) and I accepted it with revisions. Much later (and thanks to this topic), I found out that the journal in which this paper had been submitted had a pretty high impact factor. I wonder if I should have accepted the paper now. I don't think it was interesting enough to go in such a high ranked journal.
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.
A. Einstein
A. Einstein
#14
-
- Active Members
-
- 1,790 posts
an elder
Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:54 AM
Maddie, on Dec 1 2009, 11:46 AM, said:
One question for those who review articles. Do you take the journal (and its IP) into consideration?
I asked because I reviewed an average paper recently. It was OK (but only OK) and I accepted it with revisions. Much later (and thanks to this topic), I found out that the journal in which this paper had been submitted had a pretty high impact factor. I wonder if I should have accepted the paper now. I don't think it was interesting enough to go in such a high ranked journal.
I asked because I reviewed an average paper recently. It was OK (but only OK) and I accepted it with revisions. Much later (and thanks to this topic), I found out that the journal in which this paper had been submitted had a pretty high impact factor. I wonder if I should have accepted the paper now. I don't think it was interesting enough to go in such a high ranked journal.
i think you should review papers on their own merits. the publication (and its impact factor) should not be part of your review process (let the editors worry about that). what you did was fine.
talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do
#15
-
- Active Members
-
- 458 posts
Veteran
Posted 04 December 2009 - 08:54 AM
Really? OK good. So why don't I feel good about it?
Ah well, the authors of this one got lucky
Ah well, the authors of this one got lucky
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.
A. Einstein
A. Einstein
