Assessing the potentially misleading nature of metrics and of those who assess and create them

This self-published note makes a formal critique of a paper published in Wiley’s Bioessays as an invited paper: Gutierrez, F.R.S., Beall, J., Forero, D.A. (2015) Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. Bioessays 37: 474-476. DOI: 10.1002/bies.201500011. I am of the opinion that several incorrect and even misleading statements have been made in that paper. The refusal by the authors to respond to these concerns publicly, as well as the excuse by the publisher to not consider this critique on the basis of “journal space limitations” further accentuates the concerns. This model of publishing also serves as a viable way of exposing ideas and criticisms that lie beyond the manipulated hand of the self-serving interests of publishers

Assessing the potentially misleading nature of metrics and of those who assess and create them

This self-published note makes a formal critique of a paper published in Wiley’s Bioessays as an invited paper: Gutierrez, F.R.S., Beall, J., Forero, D.A. (2015) Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. Bioessays 37: 474-476. DOI: 10.1002/bies.201500011. I am of the opinion that several incorrect and even misleading statements have been made in that paper. The refusal by the authors to respond to these concerns publicly, as well as the excuse by the publisher to not consider this critique on the basis of “journal space limitations” further accentuates the concerns. This model of publishing also serves as a viable way of exposing ideas and criticisms that lie beyond the manipulated hand of the self-serving interests of publishers