When More Really Isn't Better: Aligning Policies and Outcomes in Ecology
Recently, we and others have called attention to the fact that science policies should be structured to achieve our overall intellectual and social objectives (Holbrook 2012, Schekman 2013, Anderson et al. 2015). Using this rubric to test a policy’s “theoretical adequacy” (sensu Holbrook 2010), ther...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/64025 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/64025 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | BROADER IMPACTS IMPACT FACTOR PUBLISH OR PERISH SCIENCE POLICY https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
| Sumario: | Recently, we and others have called attention to the fact that science policies should be structured to achieve our overall intellectual and social objectives (Holbrook 2012, Schekman 2013, Anderson et al. 2015). Using this rubric to test a policy’s “theoretical adequacy” (sensu Holbrook 2010), there is a growing consensus regarding the insufficiency of measuring a publication’s (or a scientist’s) quality by inference from the Impact Factor of the journal where an article is published (see San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, ASCB 2012). |
|---|