Thread by @sciencegeist, Riffing off of @DrRubidium's thread here with one of my own.https://twitter.com/DrRubidium/status/1299347935461867521 We [...]

Matt Hartings

sciencegeist

Riffing off of @DrRubidium& #39;s thread here with one of my own. https://twitter.com/DrRubidium/status/1299347935461867521">https://twitter.com/DrRubidiu...

https://twitter.com/DrRubidium/status/1299347935461867521

We (the royal we ... not just me and some other people) decide what is excellent and what is important to chemistry. A big part of that is how/what we publish in journals. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194903">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...

Perception of the importance of chemistry research papers and comparison to citation rates

Chemistry researchers are frequently evaluated on the perceived significance of their work with the citation count as the most commonly-used metric for gauging this property. Recent studies have...

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194903

Journals do *some* outreach to communities (thinking of editors traveling to different universities and speaking with grad students, among other things).

But ... in the end, what qualifies as excellent/important doesn& #39;t change in the journal& #39;s eyes.

We hold these so-called & #39;flagship& #39; journals up as markers of excellence/importance in our fields.

A big part of DEI efforts and scholarship explores how the & #39;royal we& #39; fundamentally and continuously miss excellence/importance in our fields.

You can follow @sciencegeist.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: