Abstract
In her News Focus Story “China's publication bazaar” (29 November 2013, p. [1035][1]), M. Hvistendahl points out that many scientists and organizations are starting to abandon the use of impact factors to evaluate a single researcher. Science leaders in China are considering new standards as well, such as total paper citations. The use of the Science Citation Index (SCI) may have some disadvantages, such as the financial incentives to forgery described in the article. However, in China, it may be the fairest standard to assess scientists. Without the SCI standard, the chance of getting research funding in China would be entirely based on the scientist's relations with government. Using total paper citations or number of patents awarded would have similar problems, because both of these metrics can be influenced by money. Thus, although the SCI or impact factor system has drawbacks, it is still a fair standard. More research is needed to build a system, based on impact factor or SCI, in which cheaters stand to lose more than they gain. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.342.6162.1035
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
