Damian Pattinson of @eLife (and my former boss at PLOS ONE) at The Royal Society's Future of Scientific Publishing conference describes the devastating effect on their submissions of Clarivate removing their Impact Factor due to their change in peer review model, then asks why other journals, including Science, don't renounce their own IFs.
#WebofScience
0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Ever wondered why no #bibliometrics lit on #German #legal #scholarship exists? Our new SSRN paper (@mpilhlt Research Paper Series 2025-10, with D. Fejzo, C. Rimmert) shows: we don't have the data. #webofscience and #scopus don't cut it, only #openalex is somewhat useful.
We are so excited to share you this good news that 2024 Impact Factor of NGIB is 6.5, ranking 52/182 in category of Energy&Fuels! Thank you all supporters! #impactfactor #naturalgas #journalmetrics #openaccess #webofscience #ESCI #SCIE
#OpenAlex https://openalex.org/
Interesting open-access alternative to scientific literature databases like #WebOfScience and #Scopus
#Science #OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing
From: @tub
https://openbiblio.social/@tub@openbiblio.social/114559706766379637
openalex.orgOpenAlex
Googlen könnt ihr. 
Für die systematische Suchen sind #Datenbanken dann die nächste Challenge. #WebofScience und #scopus sind hierfür wichtige Angebote von Verlagen, die wir für euch finanzieren.
Aber es gibt auch eine freie Alternative. Florian stellt euch #OpenAlex vor. Wir sind gespannt auf eure Erfahrungen.
tub.torials · Was ist OpenAlex – und wie kann man es für die Recherche nutzen?Diese Einführung zu OpenAlex zeigt, welche Inhalte die offene wissenschaftliche Datenbank bietet, wie die Weboberfläche aussieht und wie sie sich für Recherchen nutzen lässt.
Journal Article: “Data Sources Used in #Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases to the Great Wide Open”
Stable pattern with #webofscience and #Scopus
Current emphasis on #opensource
Are we entering the great wide open, or will established proprietary databases remain a dominating source?
https://www.infodocket.com/2025/05/16/journal-article-data-sources-used-in-bibliometrics-1978-2022-from-proprietary-databases-to-the-great-wide-open/
Library Journal infoDOCKETJournal Article: “Data Sources Used in Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases to the Great Wide Open”The article linked below was recently published by JASIST (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology). Title Data Sources Used In Bibliometrics 1978–2022: From Proprietary Databases To The Great Wide Open Authors Camilla Hertil Lindelöw Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden Björn Hammarfelt Swedish School of Library […]
Systematische Suche nach Literatur? Hierfür gibt es Fachdatenbanken.
Zur Recherche in der wichtigen fachübergreifenden Datenbank Web of Science haben wir euch ein paar Tipps zusammengestellt gestellt.
#Literatursuche #WebofScience
tub.torials · Mehr aus Web of Science rausholen – Ein Blick auf ausgewählte SpezialwerkzeugeWeb of Science (WoS) ist eine multidisziplinäre Abstract- und Zitationsdatenbank. Sie bietet eine Vielzahl an speziellen Suchwerkzeugen.
Earlier this week an opinion piece authored by me and a number of great colleagues was published on the @upstream blog. Our piece introduces criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases https://doi.org/10.54900/d3ck1-skq19.
We express our deep concerns about the treatment of @eLife by the #WebOfScience and #Scopus databases. We see this as an example of databases hindering rather than supporting innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.
Upstream · Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment EcosystemBibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databases that support and do not hinder innovation in scholarly communication and research assessment.
Continued thread
Today's haul. Email from @clarivate.com / #WebOfScience to tell me about 17 citations of my work. Only one of the cited papers was mine. The incompetence corrupts science.
Good news at #CNRS Open Science Day:
"CNRS's cancellation of #Scopus subscription will help support its full transition to open, non-commercial model, a point reiterated by Antoine Petit ... 'We will eventually need to stop using commercial databases for bibliometrics and bibliography'. In the meantime CNRS has maintained subscription to Clarivate's #WebOfScience database while free bibliographic databases are being developed like open access not-for-profit solution @OpenAlex."
The #bibliometrics databases #WebofScience and #Scopus "are not global databases of knowledge" but lead to a decrease of epistemic diversity. A call for "a more globally representative, non-profit, community-controlled infrastructure for the global pool of research knowledge" https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/qhvgr
doi.orgOSF
Continued thread
The decision by #WebOfScience "therefore rewards journals for continuing the unhelpful practice of keeping peer review information hidden and unintentionally presenting incomplete and inadequate studies as sound science and punishes those journals that are more transparent."
Bodo Stern at #HHMI is spot on in his assessment of the decision by #WebOfScience to stop indexing @eLife articles: "Rather than helping move scholarly communication forward, Web of Science, by punishing a leader in the field, is in fact holding it back."
https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/how-the-web-of-science-takes-a-step-back/
www.coalition-s.orgHow the Web of Science takes a step back | Plan S<p>The Web of Science, a major commercial indexing service of scientific journals operated by Clarivate, recently decided to remove eLife from its Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). eLife will only be partially indexed in Web of Science as part of its Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). The justification offered for this decision is that eLife’s […]</p>
How we built a database of preprints https://blog.europepmc.org/2024/11/how-we-built-a-database-of-preprints.html
While #WebOfScience is 'delisting' innovative platforms such as @eLife, #EuropePMC is moving in the opposite direction and is working hard to give maximal visibility to preprints and preprint reviews. Exemplary work!
blog.europepmc.orgHow we built a database of preprints – Europe PMC News Blog
Right now at the #MetaROR launch at the @aimos conference, Ginny Barbour, Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Journal of Australia, strongly criticizes #WebOfScience for discontinuing full indexing of @eLife.
Important reflections by @eLife on #WebOfScience decision to discontinue full indexing of eLife https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/c11c6101/the-elife-model-an-update-on-progress-following-changes-in-web-of-science-indexing-status.
"As journals that are partially indexed are not given Impact Factor, we won't receive one when metric is updated in June 2025. This is despite fact that partial feed would only include papers that WoS judges above threshold for inclusion and despite fact that papers we deem below this threshold can subsequently be published in SCIE-indexed journals."
eLifeThe eLife Model: An update on progress following changes in Web of Science indexing statusFollowing the decision that eLife will not receive an Impact Factor in 2025, we share an update on how our model is doing since we were first placed “on hold” by Web of Science, and what we’re up to now.
This is how I feel about Web of Science vs. eLife fwiw
It's much bigger than just eLife. Clarivate isn't moving with the times.
Many of the best venues you can publish your research in are now _outside_ of Clarivate's "Master Journal List" 
eLife transitioning into life beyond Clarivate is part of a much wider trend.
funny to see this over at Clarivate.
Does deleting eLife from the "Master Journal List" really require them to take down the whole thing whilst they do it?
[edit: it's back-up now]
Does the African academy need its own citation index? by David Mills & Toluwase Asubiaro
"... journals published in the global peripheries, in small fields, or in languages other than English, struggle to get indexed. In 2023, if one excludes South Africa, only around 60 of the 30,000 plus journals indexed in Web of Science were published from Sub Saharan Africa."
Stupid decision by #WebOfScience to pause indexing of @eLife articles https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/16afe6ec/update-on-elife-s-indexing-status-at-web-of-science.
Fully agree with eLife that "this decision from Web of Science stifles attempts to show how publishing and peer review can be improved using open science principles, and instead gives the appearance of ongoing support for established and ineffective publishing models that have needed to change for so long".
In this way #WebOfScience is rapidly making itself irrelevant for the scientific community!
eLifeUpdate on eLife’s indexing status at Web of ScienceFollowing Web of Science’s decision to place eLife “on hold” while it reevaluates our review process, we explain what this means for authors and outline our next steps.