Um artigo interessante do The Guardian sobre fator de impacto e revisão por pares. Como seria interessante que jornais brasileiros tratassem de temas sofisticados de ciência.... Veja trechos:
"One of the challenges faced by research funders – both public and private – is how to maximise the amount of work being done on important problems, without institutionalising any particular dogma which may suppress novel ideas. The most common arrangement is to fund good researchers but refrain from being overly prescriptive about outcomes, and, in turn, the way to identify good researchers has been to look at the publications that follow the research they fund.
In 1955, Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (now part of Thomson Reuters), introduced a means for identifying influential journals according to the number of times work appearing in them was cited. This process results in a number called the impact factor (IF), and it's build on the assumption that those whose works have been the most influential will be the most cited.
However, as anyone who's compared the Twitter following of, say, pop singerRihanna to astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson knows, influence is only one dimension of importance. While useful for many (pre-digital) years, the IF system, not unlike some celebrities, is not aging gracefully. Not only has it been widely misapplied, it has also had some unintended side effects."