请评价！！！

[ Last edited by bingyulin3 on 2008-12-28 at 09:15 ]

这个期刊的审稿政策决定了论文的平均水平不高。但同时他们还是发表了少数高水平的论文。通常一个期刊的影响因子主要取决于引用率高的前20%左右的论文的引用次数，后面大多数贡献不大，所以我的评估应该在1以上，但不会太高，应该小于3.

同时，SCI收录与否也没把握。现在是ISI Web of Knowledge 收录了，但ISI Web of Science没有,后者才包含SCIE.

我之所以设置最后一个选项，是担心Plos One和LNCS一样的下场。

PLoS One现在还未收录到SCI中，因此今年ISI可能不会统计它的2008年影响因子了。不过，有人早已利用Google Scholar对PLoS One在2007年发表的文章进行了引用统计，结果计算出其IF=5.68。虽然他们没有统计该杂志2006年文章的运用情况，但PLoS One在2006才刊登137篇论文（而2007年为1229篇），所以对统计结果影响不大。就算2006年全部文章引用为零（这是不可能的），PLoS One的IF也达到5.11。所以说，2008年PLoS One的影响因子应该在5以上。

见过PLOS one 上有很好的文章，质量也不一定比PLOS系列中其他的期刊的低。另外老外投稿时和我们对期刊的看法不一样。我个人觉得PLOS one的引用会比一般的杂志高，但是SCI暂时不会收录，如果收录的话，也是等审稿策略改变以后，

什么人统计的，要知道， Google scholar有很多重复，去掉了吗。

PLoS One民间统计的影响因子出自这里：
http://lampreylinux.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/impact-factor-of-plos-one/

再看看另一处关于PLoS One的走势分析，大致与PLoS Computational Biology相当：
http://www.medsci.cn/shownews.asp?id=132

[ Last edited by javaen on 2009-4-26 at 19:08 ]

另外还有一些关于PLoS One的讨论：
http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=220746
http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=17

也许，看过这些讨论后，很少再有人会认为PLoS One的IF<3了。

看看plos one网页上的这句话，PLoS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them). 即使plos one发表一些高水平论文，总的影响因子也不会太高。ISI的SCIE迟迟不肯收录它可能也是这个原因。有人误把ISI web of knowledge 收录当成了SCI收录，目前ISI的web of science并没有收录这一期刊。

顺便多说几句，要想在plos one上发表论文，就要放弃拿着期刊做宣传的想法。这个期刊的审稿不审你论文的水平高低，而是可靠与否。也就是说，即使它的影响因子达到100，作者也不能因为在上面发表了论文，而宣称自己的研究水平如何高。这一点不同于传统期刊（以及plos系列的其他期刊）。要证明自己的水平，还要耐性等待他人引用或者被F1000等机构评价一下。

我并没有贬低plos one作者群的意思。好的论文不需要沾期刊的光，而是期刊沾论文的光。只有差的论文才整天宣传自己发表在什么期刊上。俄国数学家佩雷尔曼，因拒领菲尔兹奖而在中国新闻上反复出现，他的论文就没有发表在著名期刊上，甚至可以说没有正式发表，没有经过审稿等过程自己放到网上（arXiv）的。这位人物显然足够自信，没有必要投给严格审稿的顶级数学期刊或综合性期刊。

"the IFs of the journal where a paper is published is a very poor measure of a papers importance"

[ Last edited by darwinists on 2009-5-1 at 14:32 ]

http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/2009/04/guestimating-plos-one-impact-factor.html

Guestimating PLoS ONE impact factor
Abhishek Tiwari did some analysis on the number of citations that PLoS ONE is getting so far using Scopus database. We had a small discussion over the numbers on FriendFeed and I ended up looking at different set of values also from Scopus. I tried to predict the first Impact Factor for PLoS ONE that might be out sometime this year.

Before showing the numbers I will repeat again that I think the IFs of the journal where a paper is published is a very poor measure of a papers importance. Although it is probably a good measure of the relative value of a journal (within a given field) we should be striving to pick what we read based on the value of a paper instead of the journal.

The Impact Factors that will be published this year are calculated as the total number of citations from 2008 to papers published in 2006 and 2007, divided by the number of citable units in 2006-2007 (articles and reviews). The data I am looking at is from Scopus so it varies a bit from the one in ISI. The variability comes from the decision of what to include as "citable" articles and from the journals that are covered in Scopus versus ISI.

One problem I found with Scopus data was that, for some journals, the database has multiple entries due to small variations in article titles. For PLoS Biology, PLoS Computational Biology and PLoS Genetics the number of articles published should be less than half of what is reported. This does not appear to be the case for PLoS ONE.
I downloaded the tables of published articles and tried to removed redundancies looking at the tittles and authors. I counted only articles and reviews as citable items but used all articles published in 2006-2007 to get the number of citations in the year 2008. I also did the same calculations for the impact factor of the previous year to be able to compare with the data from ISI. The results were comparable but not the same.



In summary, PLoS ONE might get an impact factor of about half of the expected for PLoS Computational Biology. The usual disclaimers should be said: I have no idea of how complete Scopus data is and how exactly it relates to ISI.

[ Last edited by darwinists on 2009-5-1 at 14:37 ]

以上转贴早已在他处看过。这组统计数据与前人利用Google Scholar提供的数据出入较大。不过两组数据都说明了一点，PLoS One的平均引用率，也就是所谓ISI影响因子，决不会象某些人猜测那样，在1左右，也不会象上面投票那样，1－2。关于PLoS One的引用分析，推荐大家看看如下网址：http://www.abhishek-tiwari.com/2009/04/citationtrend-line-for-plos-journals.html
不仅是PLoS One，任何期刊的影响因子不能说明其发表论文的真正水平。但是，在当今中国学术界，我们无不在用期刊的IF来为论文量身定价。同时，期刊的IF，无时不刻在左右着作者群和读者群。
如果PLoS One不被SCI收录的原因，我想，并不在于它的审稿策略，而是在于PLoS One的“叛逆”，不想追随ISI主导的IF潮流。不过，遗憾的是，自从PLoS One创刊以来，关于它的IF预测和讨论，一直没停止过。一些“摇钱树”、“垃圾收集站”之类的言论，即使没有贬低PLoS One的作者群之意，也无形中影响了其读者群。本人最初就是受到这类言论的影响，对PLoS One的第一印象极差，在后来看过更多评论，对该期刊有更深入了解后，印象才逐渐改观。不过，我想，大多数人可能没有多大兴趣去对一个期刊进行深入认识了。结果，某些个人主观言论误导了大家，而帮助大家对PLoS One有更深入认识，也许可避免这类事情发生。

[ Last edited by javaen on 2009-5-3 at 22:32 ]