Abstract
Formally published papers that have been through a traditional prepublication peer review process remain the most important means of communicating science today. Researchers depend on them to learn about the latest advances in their fields and to report their own findings. The intentions of traditional peer review are certainly noble: to ensure methodological integrity and to comment on potential significance of experimental studies through examination by a panel of objective, expert colleagues. In principle, this system enables science to move forward on the collective confidence of previously published work. Unfortunately, the traditional system has inspired methods of measuring impact that are suboptimal for their intended uses.
Highlights
The Perspective section provides experts with a forum to comment on topical or controversial issues of broad interest
There are many we could use but the majority of scientists filter by preferentially reading articles from specific journals—those they view as the highest quality and the most important
Though the impact factor is flawed, it may be useful for evaluating journals in some contexts, and other more sophisticated metrics for journals are emerging [3,4,9,10]
Summary
The Perspective section provides experts with a forum to comment on topical or controversial issues of broad interest. There are many we could use but the majority of scientists filter by preferentially reading articles from specific journals—those they view as the highest quality and the most important.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
