Translation and Literature is an interdisciplinary scholarly journal focusing on English Literature in its foreign relations. Recent articles and notes include: Surrey and Marot, Livy and Jacobean drama, Virgil in Paradise Lost, Pope’s Horace, Fielding on translation, Browning’s Agamemnon, and Brecht in English. It embraces responses to all other literatures in the work of English writers, including reception of classical texts; historical and contemporary translation of works in modern languages; history and theory of literary translation, adaptation, and imitation.
H-Net is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers dedicated to developing the enormous educational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Our edited lists and web sites publish peer reviewed essays, multimedia materials, and discussion for colleagues and the interested public.
The DART-Europe partners help to provide researchers with a single European Portal for the discovery of Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs), and they participate in advocacy to influence future European e-theses developments.
It has all been said before, of course. Research assessment “rests too heavily on the inflated status of the impact factor”, a Nature editorial noted in 2005; or as structural biologist Stephen Curry of Imperial College London put it in a recent blog post: “I am sick of impact factors and so is science”.
Even the company that creates the impact factor, Thomson Reuters, has issued advice that it does not measure the quality of an individual article in a journal, but rather correlates to the journal’s reputation in its field. (In response to DORA, Thomson Reuters notes that it’s the abuse of the JIF that is the problem, not the metric itself.)
by Timothy McAdoo Can you cite computer software in APA Style? Yes! Here’s everything you need to know. Q: Do I have to cite the computer software I mention in my paper? A: The Publication Manual specifies that a reference...
At eLife, we strongly support the improvement of research assessment, and the shift from journal-based metrics to an array of article (and other output) metrics and indicators. If and when eLife is awarded an impact factor, we will not promote this metric. Instead, we will continue to support a vision for research assessment that relies on a range of transparent evidence–qualitative as well as quantitative–about the specific impacts and outcomes of a collection of relevant research outputs. In this way, the concept of research impact can be expanded and enriched rather than reduced to a single number or a journal name.
With less (or ideally no) involvement of impact factors in research assessment, we believe that research communication will undergo substantial improvement. Journals can focus on scientific integrity and quality, and promote the values and services that they offer, supported by appropriate metrics as evidence of their performance. Authors can choose their preferred venue based on service, cost and reputation in their field. All constituencies will then benefit from a deeper understanding of the significance and influence of our collective investment in research, and ultimately a more effective system of research communication.