Who's Who: Journals

I found this hilarious comic while comparing Nature and Science, two journals the PBs have officially published in, which also happen to have some of the highest "Impact Factors (IF)".

(Source: PhDComics)

I read up further about journal reputation, and came across this article about important papers that were initially rejected by esteemed journals. I also come across this Reddit discussion about Nature vs Science. 

It is understood that we should not only look at IF when evaluating the value of scientific work. Some even go as far to opine that scientific contributions published in multidisciplinary scientific journals like Nature and Science are less valuable than counterparts published in esteemed discipline-specific journals, which generally have lower IF. 

It makes sense for PBs, an interdisciplinary concept, to be published in interdisciplinary journals, although it did begin life in a niche ecology journal. 

Quantifying/ranking reputation and value of scientific contribution gives us some idea of inflence. It should not be used for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of a piece of work, as that would commit an ad hominem fallacy. They are, however, relevant to the study of the complex social institutions of Science and Academia. 

(Not so much of a social institution in high school.)

On a related note, I will discuss the quantitative methods to determine environmental indices in my next post. Quantification and hierarchy underlie the PBs. Does this oversimplify environmental challenges?