Nature 命中率约11.13% eLife 命中率约11.90%. Nature Genetics 命中率约12% PNAS 命中率约16.5% Molecular Cell 命中率约22.5% Cell Res 命中率约41.36% Sharp inconsistence between IF and 命中率. Some editors really know how to play with IF.
【 在 birdhatesnak (birdhatesnak) 的大作中提到: 】 Nature 命中率约11.13% eLife 命中率约11.90%. Nature Genetics 命中率约12% PNAS 命中率约16.5% Molecular Cell 命中率约22.5% Cell Res 命中率约41.36% Sharp inconsistence between IF and 命中率. Some editors really know how to play with IF.
【 在 birdhatesnak (birdhatesnak) 的大作中提到: 】 Here it is: http://www.medsci.cn/sci/index.do?action=search#result or search Cell research in http://journal.medsci.cn/journal/index Maybe there is a mistake from the website.
This is not true-- in my field, paper quality is really high actually. There might be more and more 烂文章 over there, but the number of publications increases, 上面的good文章越来越多, too. ---its acceptance rate is 11.9%-- you can see from this.
【 在 birdhatesnak (birdhatesnak) 的大作中提到: 】 Nature 命中率约11.13% eLife 命中率约11.90%. Nature Genetics 命中率约12% PNAS 命中率约16.5% Molecular Cell 命中率约22.5% Cell Res 命中率约41.36% Sharp inconsistence between IF and 命中率. Some editors really know how to play with IF.
【 在 birdhatesnak (birdhatesnak) 的大作中提到: 】 This is not true-- in my field, paper quality is really high actually. There might be more and more 烂文章 over there, but the number of publications increases, 上面的good文章越来越多, too. ---its acceptance rate is 11.9%-- you can see from this.
I am not sure how the ratio of bad /good paper is measured. See this: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/infographic-how-is-elife-measuring-up briefly, this was from 2016. " This month, eLife’s backers – the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust – said that they would extend support until 2022 with a ￡25 million boost. Glasses lying on top of a journal Journal impact factors ‘no longer credible’ READ MORE Four years on, how is eLife doing? It is now publishing as many papers as Nature, with acceptance rates falling from more than one in four when it was set up to about 15 per cent last year. Along with many other academic critics, eLife rejects the use of journal impact factors, which measure the average number of citations papers receive. However, the measure remains watched by some researchers hoping for promotion, and on this count, eLife remains behind Nature. Science declined to give year-by-year breakdowns for acceptance rates and papers published. A spokeswoman said that about 800 papers were published each year, and 6 to 7 per cent of submissions were accepted. Science’s journal impact factor has remained in the low 30s throughout the period.".
Science 37.205
Cell 30.41
Molecular Cell 13.957
Nature Communication 12.124
NSMB 13.338
Cell Reports 8.282
elife 7.725
EMBO J 9.792
EMBO Reports 7.739
Nucleic Acids Res 10.162
JBC 4.258
PNAS 9.661
其他自己可以在下网址上查http://journal.medsci.cn/journal/index?action=search#result
eLife 命中率约11.90%.
Nature Genetics 命中率约12%
PNAS 命中率约16.5%
Molecular Cell 命中率约22.5%
Cell Res 命中率约41.36%
Sharp inconsistence between IF and 命中率. Some editors really know how to play with IF.
: play with IF.
可能是他们知道哪些文章引用数会比较高，就只登这些文章。而elife可能会登些引用
数不会高的但是可能将来会发现重要性的文章。有的方向实验要做很久，两年里面引用数肯定上不去。这是往好的方向想了。
http://www.medsci.cn/sci/index.do?action=search#result
or search Cell research in
http://journal.medsci.cn/journal/index
Maybe there is a mistake from the website.
There might be more and more 烂文章 over there, but the number of
publications increases, 上面的good文章越来越多, too. ---its acceptance rate is 11.9%-- you can see from this.
eLIFE号召KILL IF似乎还是有一丁点作用的 现在有更多科研评价的方式的讨论 Nature也最近有过这方面的社论
之前 发过eLIFE 整个过程的体验不错 要求的补的实验很合理 不过 IF还没触底的话
下一次投肯定不是我的优先选项
这是真的“影响”
还有一个3年引用，halflife，这才是看实验的。
意见
你的领域可能比较特殊。Elife的烂文章不但数目上来了，比例也上来了。
59.558
See this:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/infographic-how-is-elife-measuring-up
briefly, this was from 2016.
"
This month, eLife’s backers – the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust – said that they would extend
support until 2022 with a ￡25 million boost.
Glasses lying on top of a journal
Journal impact factors ‘no longer credible’
READ MORE
Four years on, how is eLife doing?
It is now publishing as many papers as Nature, with acceptance rates falling from more than one in four when it was set up to about 15 per cent last
year.
Along with many other academic critics, eLife rejects the use of journal
impact factors, which measure the average number of citations papers receive. However, the measure remains watched by some researchers hoping for
promotion, and on this count, eLife remains behind Nature.
Science declined to give year-by-year breakdowns for acceptance rates and
papers published. A spokeswoman said that about 800 papers were published
each year, and 6 to 7 per cent of submissions were accepted. Science’s
journal impact factor has remained in the low 30s throughout the period.".
7.3
两年之前： 4.5