Caros Eu poderia retirar dezenas de extratos do relatorio da IMU que o Samuel colocou na lista. Recomendo no mínimo folhear o relatório.
Destaco apenas dois trechos: 1- [(vi) The most important criticism of the impact factor is that its meaning is not well understood. When using the impact factor to compare two journals, there is no a priori model that defines what it means to be "better". The only model derives from the impact factor itself—a larger impact factor means a better journal. In the classical statistical paradigm, one defines a model, formulates a hypothesis (of no difference), and then finds a statistic, which depending on its values allows one to accept or reject the hypothesis. Deriving information (and possibly a model) from the data itself is a legitimate approach to statistical analysis, but in this case it is not clear what information has been derived. How does the impact factor measure quality? Is it the best statistic to measure quality? What precisely does it measure? (Our later discussion about the meaning of citations is relevant here.) Remarkably little is known about a model for journal quality or how it might relate to the impact factor.] página 9 paragrafo 1 2- [Once one realizes that it makes no sense to substitute the impact factor for individual article citation counts, it follows that it makes no sense to use the impact factor to evaluate the authors of those articles, the programs in which they work, and (most certainly) the disciplines they represent. The impact factor and averages in general are too crude to make sensible comparisons of this sort without more information.] página 12 parágrafo 5. No qualis, o impact factor de revistas de Lógica será comparado ao de outras revistas de Matemática. Se for para colocar impact factor na jogada, podemos desistir de ter revista A na Matemática. Abraço Rodrigo _______________________________________________ Logica-l mailing list Logica-l@dimap.ufrn.br http://www.dimap.ufrn.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/logica-l
