Timeline for Is it wise (and common) to publish in a peer-reviewed journal without an impact factor to prevent impairement of one's own mean impact factor?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2015 at 12:27 | vote | accept | Cobactan | ||
| Aug 1, 2015 at 14:47 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/627490761257431040 | ||
| Jul 31, 2015 at 13:03 | history | edited | jakebeal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor cleanup
|
| Jul 31, 2015 at 13:02 | answer | added | jakebeal | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 12:33 | comment | added | JeffE | This is the first time I've seen the phrase "mean impact factor". Is this a thing now? | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 12:00 | comment | added | user9482 | Based on your description they care too much about the mighty impact factor. | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 11:58 | comment | added | DCTLib | Could you write your field? Whether people care about impact factors is somewhat field-dependent. Also, one reason why a journal may not have an impact factor is that it is too new. If a new journal emerges with extremely well-known researchers in the editor board, this indicates the potential for a very high quality of papers in the future. This is a good reason for submitting your own high-quality work there. | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 11:29 | history | asked | Cobactan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |