DELZON, Sylvain; COCHARD, Hervé; PFAUTSCH, Sebastian

doi:10.20870/jph.2016.e009

Métadonnées

Afficher la notice complète

Licence d’utilisation du document

DELZON, Sylvain
Biodiversité, Gènes & Communautés [BioGeCo]

COCHARD, Hervé
Laboratoire de Physique et Physiologie Intégratives de l'Arbre Fruitier et Forestier [PIAF]

PFAUTSCH, Sebastian
Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment [Richmond] [HIE]

Langue

Article de revue

Ce document a été publié dans

Journal of Plant Hydraulics. 2016, vol. 3, n° e-009, p. e009

INRA Science and Impact

Résumé en anglais

Funders, institutions and journals should challenge the tyranny of metrics. Editors of international scientific journals find it more and more difficult to locate reviewers that are willing to evaluate manuscripts prior to publication (called ‘peer-review’). The most experienced researchers, best qualified to undertake these evaluations, increasingly decline peer-review requests, either because they do not have time or because they have reviewed so many manuscripts that they have become weary of the task. As a result, editors often have to call upon less experienced researchers or scientists, increasingly from more distant fields, often to the detriment of the quality of the review. So how did we arrive at this impasse, and what can we do to resolve it? The stakes are high, because the reputation of the whole peer-review system used in scientific publishing could be damaged in the long term.< Réduire

Mots clés en anglais

Scientific edition

open access

Impact factor

metrics

Métadonnées

Partager cette publication !

Licence d’utilisation du document

Indexing the indices: scientific publishing needs to undergo a revolution.

Langue

Ce document a été publié dans

Résumé en anglais

Mots clés en anglais

URI

DOI

Origine

Unités de recherche