True value of a Ph.D? (and Publish or Perish)

Kitschy_Cat

Hi,

I'm looking for some advice please!

I'm a recent pharmaceutical science graduate at a cross-roads. I'm not sure whether or not I should do a Ph.D or if a Masters would benefit me more in the long-term.

I'm not 100% sure what direction I want to take my career in yet (there are so many interesting options in science!) but I've always been interested in molecular biology/biochemistry and medicine.

I don't particularly want to be stuck in a job doing routine tests for the rest of my days.. The idea of discovering novel drugs excites me but I've heard mixed reviews from Ph.D students about the true value of a Ph.D in Ireland. I feel slightly caught between a rock and a hard place. If I do a Ph.D, I'll be committed to another 4 years of study/research, living a poor student lifestyle.. I haven't had much of an opportunity to travel (I'm 25 now) and would like to change that. But in order to travel, you need money!

So I'm just trying to weigh up my options and see if a research masters (maybe part time over two years while I'm working) would be more suitable for my situation as opposed to a full on Ph.D? Also, does anyone know if a list exists of companies that are engaged in the Enterprise Partnership Programme or has anyone completed this type of Ph.D and found it to be beneficial?

Apologies for the essay! But any help/advice would be much appreciated.

-Catherine

Black Swan

The research discovery process is exciting for me too, and frankly, without a PhD and only a masters, if you end up in discovery, you will more than likely be working for PhDs. That's not a problem; I do it now. But if you want to increase the likelihood of leading an investigation as a PI when replying to RFPs, the grantors may consider the PhD as one of many qualifications when you are up against stiff competition for the award of research monies. Of course scholarly pubs, track record in research, institutional affiliation, and referees count too.

As for travel now, why don't you write scholarly papers and submit them to conferences abroad? You can do this as a PhD student, and also use the institutional affiliation of your school to increase the likelihood of acceptance. University deans, department heads, and PIs sometimes have funds for getting out the word on their research. Some grants require it.

I've done this, sometimes taking the second author/co-presenter position (when in fact I did all the original paper authorship and Power Point), allowing the more known professor/researcher to take the primary credit, get the acceptance, and come up with some travel monies. Conferences can last two or more days, allowing you to see the world and have a bit of fun.

djpbarry

Kitschy_Cat wrote: »

The idea of discovering novel drugs excites me but I've heard mixed reviews from Ph.D students about the true value of a Ph.D in Ireland.

You really have to think beyond Ireland if you want to get into research, generally speaking. That’s not to say that there isn’t some top notch research taking place in Ireland – there definitely is. But, it’s a small country and if you choose to pursue a career in research and carve yourself out a niche, you’re going to find your opportunities very limited if you restrict your job search to Ireland.

djpbarry

Black Swan wrote: »

As for travel now, why don't you write scholarly papers and submit them to conferences abroad?

I can’t honestly say I’ve much time to explore whenever I’ve been at a conference, unless I stay on for a couple of days afterward at my own expense.

Black Swan wrote: »

I've done this, sometimes taking the second author/co-presenter position (when in fact I did all the original paper authorship and Power Point), allowing the more known professor/researcher to take the primary credit, get the acceptance, and come up with some travel monies.

I would say this is quite unusual, in my field at least (engineering/life sciences). It would look very strange for a PI to be first author on a conference submission, with a student second.

robp

Black Swan wrote: »

As for travel now, why don't you write scholarly papers and submit them to conferences abroad? You can do this as a PhD student, and also use the institutional affiliation of your school to increase the likelihood of acceptance. University deans, department heads, and PIs sometimes have funds for getting out the word on their research. Some grants require it.

I guess it depends on the PI. If they have ample grant money things are easier. Sometimes there are national rules on travel also. I doubt I am typical but as a PhD student I have been able to travel to places like Memphis and Hawaii aswell as around Europe. I probably am a bit unusual though. Most of the time will be spent at the conference but not always all.

Black Swan

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say this is quite unusual, in my field at least (engineering/life sciences). It would look very strange for a PI to be first author on a conference submission, with a student second.

I am not in engineering, and cannot speak for all the life sciences... I am temporarily across the pond, and my experiences in a 2-year masters at USC, and now in a PhD programme at a different university, has given me a couple of opportunities to be the 2nd author and co-presenter at two overseas conferences. I suspect that many a grad student is reluctant to ask, consequently there are few that avail themselves of these opportunities to travel with a more established co-presenter and build their CV's by presenting at international conferences. I have, and will continue to do so.

Travel aside, I believe that a PhD student can also increase the likelihood of acceptance for peer-reviewed journal publication by co-authoring with a known, well published professor and/or PI, taking 2nd or 3rd name. I have been a member on their research teams and co-published in this way. Of course, 1st name counts most, but those come in time after your associated name becomes known in the top ranked journals.

This 2nd authorship introduction into a field has not been all that unusual, especially when attempting to enter and establish a reputation in the very competitive creative writing field. For example, I am now reading a novel titled Private Berlin, which is 1st name authored by the very well known James Patterson (estimated income for 2010 was $84 million), and 2nd name co-authored by the lesser known Mark Sullivan (also showing some success, but not in the same league as Patterson).

djpbarry

Black Swan wrote: »

I am not in engineering, and cannot speak for all the life sciences... I am temporarily across the pond, and my experiences in a 2-year masters at USC, and now in a PhD programme at a different university, has given me a couple of opportunities to be the 2nd author and co-presenter at two overseas conferences.

And I’m just saying that in science (the OP's field) or engineering, it would be very unusual for a student to be 2nd author or co-presenter on their own work. Whoever does the work is first author, the PI is the last author and any other contributors come in between. Furthermore, I have never seen a presentation delivered by more than one person at a conference.

Black Swan wrote: »

Travel aside, I believe that a PhD student can also increase the likelihood of acceptance for peer-reviewed journal publication by co-authoring with a known, well published professor and/or PI, taking 2nd or 3rd name. I have been a member on their research teams and co-published in this way. Of course, 1st name counts most, but those come in time after your associated name becomes known in the top ranked journals.

I don’t really follow what you’re saying here really. The status of your PI should have absolutely no bearing on whether you are first author or not.

Ostrom

Black Swan wrote: »

Travel aside, I believe that a PhD student can also increase the likelihood of acceptance for peer-reviewed journal publication by co-authoring with a known, well published professor and/or PI, taking 2nd or 3rd name. I have been a member on their research teams and co-published in this way. Of course, 1st name counts most, but those come in time after your associated name becomes known in the top ranked journals.

I'm not sure sure about this. While the review process is far from optimal, and the politics of networking has some bearing on the overall quality and prestige of output, I believe blind reviewing overcomes this. If the work is of a high enough standard, it will make it into the public arena - new entrants often pop up in high-impact journals with quality papers.

OP - make sure you have some love for your subject, and for the research you will be doing. It makes sense to think instrumentally in a tight labour market, but career advancement wont sustain you through the dark days.

cgc5483

djpbarry wrote: »

And I’m just saying that in science (the OP's field) or engineering, it would be very unusual for a student to be 2nd author or co-presenter on their own work. Whoever does the work is first author, the PI is the last author and any other contributors come in between. Furthermore, I have never seen a presentation delivered by more than one person at a conference.
I don’t really follow what you’re saying here really. The status of your PI should have absolutely no bearing on whether you are first author or not.

Would disagree with you slightly here about life sciences. While it would be the norm that the student is the 1st author in many places it is not unusual that they would be relegated to 2nd author. I can think of several labs where this is the norm.

djpbarry

cgc5483 wrote: »

Would disagree with you slightly here about life sciences. While it would be the norm that the student is the 1st author in many places it is not unusual that they would be relegated to 2nd author. I can think of several labs where this is the norm.

If it does happen, it's poor form - whoever does the work gets first author. That's the generally accepted rule.

Black Swan

djpbarry wrote: »

I can’t honestly say I’ve much time to explore whenever I’ve been at a conference, unless I stay on for a couple of days afterward at my own expense.

Have you ever wondered why so many international conferences are located in cities and islands known for their vacation amenities and attractions? For example, conferences held in Hawaii, Orlando, Hong Kong, Rio, Dubai, etc. (Oh did I love the warm water sports and festive activities coordinated by our conference staff in Jamaica, after presentation times each day).

This fun travel aspect associated with scholarly conferences was not new to me, given that I am a faculty brat, and used to tag along with my Da when he traveled to present at some marvelous locations. Of course he had to pay for me, and sometimes an extra day or two, but we were on location at a greatly reduced travel cost overall.

efla wrote: »

I'm not sure sure about this. While the review process is far from optimal, and the politics of networking has some bearing on the overall quality and prestige of output, I believe blind reviewing overcomes this.

Oh, I could be in error, and the research topic importance, analysis, implications, and manuscript I drafted (and my PI edited and submitted) was superior to many of those received by a peer-reviewed journal that frequently saw my former PI's name over the years. Then again, I believe reputation and networking may sometimes count too, especially in a time when printing costs are going sky high, libraries are cutting back, and readership and subscriptions are important to stay afloat.

Granted it suffers from being anecdotal, but when I co-presented with this past PI at an international conference awhile back, the senior editor of a peer-reviewed publication was in the audience. He knew my PI well, but obviously not me. After Q&A he came forward and commented on the fact that we had included a discussion on the methodological limitations of our research in our short conference presentation frame (which I insisted upon), unlike many of the presentations he had attended that day. Furthermore he said he liked our research topic, then told us to ensure that we addressed our submission to him by name. We were published with minor revisions, and I was happy (at the time) to see my 2nd author name associated with one well known in our field of inquiry, which also looks grand on my CV.

cgc5483 wrote: »

Would disagree with you slightly here about life sciences. While it would be the norm that the student is the 1st author in many places it is not unusual that they would be relegated to 2nd author. I can think of several labs where this is the norm.

In the Best of All Possible Worlds, this would not occur. Unfortunately it does happen, especially under the extraordinary pressures of the "publish or perish" environment across the pond at some USA universities, departments, and labs, driven by their highly competitive private and public grant sources.

djpbarry wrote: »

If it does happen, it's poor form - whoever does the work gets first author. That's the generally accepted rule.

Agree. Fortunately, my current major professor believes in this ethic, and if my contribution exceeds theirs in the manuscript we are currently putting together, then I get first name.

Kevster

Sorry for reviving, but many things said rung bells in my head.

I've got 7 publications in peer-reviewed journals but am not first author on any of the 3 publications that resulted from my PhD. My supervisor swiped the first on the big one (my main PhD data), and it got into a 14.5 impact factor journal. Still, I managed to get my first 'sole author' publication accepted, albeit in a low impact factor journal who have agreed to even waive the publication fees.

Conferences? - it's probably easier to speak at them (and more fun) than just attending. i'm speaking at NGS Manchester next Wednesday, and then heading back to my roots at IT Carlow to present at Science Week on the following Monday.

I find the peer review process a 'joke', but I am in the life sciences area. I believe that everything should be blind, but this also includes when a group submits a manuscript for submission in the first place - i.e. not even the journal should know which group submitted the work. Otherwise, it gets laughable at how much poor quality research from groups with good reputations gets published.

Kevin

Black Swan

Kevster wrote: »

Sorry for reviving, but many things said rung bells in my head.

No problem. You are welcome.

Kevster

This article today in the New York Times is quite pertinent (<-sorry for using the nerdy word):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/education/edlife/finding-life-after-academia-and-not-feeling-bad-about-it.html?hp&_r=0

ancapailldorcha

Kevster wrote: »

I find the peer review process a 'joke', but I am in the life sciences area. I believe that everything should be blind, but this also includes when a group submits a manuscript for submission in the first place - i.e. not even the journal should know which group submitted the work. Otherwise, it gets laughable at how much poor quality research from groups with good reputations gets published.

I know what you mean. We had someone new take over the microbiological angle of studies at work and she was typing up her thesis at the time. She said it took over a year to get her paper published. The academics told her that anything with our PI's name on it gets published more or less right away.

5uspect

I'm shocked to read some of the behaviour that goes on. My PhD supervisor was first author on my first conference paper, and rightly so, as he heavily guided the work. All subsequent conference and Journal papers were mine with him second and additional collaborators after that. Nobody was added for the sake of it.

Even the PI in my previous group, a deeply unpleasant person I might add, didn't try this. However he did quietly change himself as the corresponding author. Considering how quickly all his students break contact with him as soon as they get free I'm not surprised.

Anyhow, in engineering you tend to own your own work. Impact factors in Engineering Journals tend to be lower however. JFM is probably the most prestigious journal in my area, and they're a hell of a lot if work, but it scores about 2.2.

Kevster

I read the results of a study, once, and it said that the position of an author's name on a manuscript is the #1 reason for disputes in research groups. I and understand why, and i've got some more to add to what's already been said: I've witness on multiple occasions where a person gets a first author publication without having even written the manuscript.

There is an awful lot of politics in it, and journals like Nature are -I'm afraid to say- elitist. I think that if an 'unknown' group and a highly reputable group submitted the exact same manuscript to Nature ... well ... you know where I'm going with this.

I think that putting yourself forward for speaking reflects very well, though. I mean, if you list conferences/seminars at which you've presented on your CV, then I think it helps to make up for the lack of publications. It would certainly show your enthusiasm for research.

Thanks,
Kevin

djpbarry

Kevster wrote: »

I find the peer review process a 'joke', but I am in the life sciences area.

I wouldn't really agree with that. Sure, it has its shortcomings - you're always going to get reviewers and editors who are not as objective as they could be. But a "joke" - I think that's pushing it.

Kevster wrote: »

There is an awful lot of politics in it, and journals like Nature are -I'm afraid to say- elitist. I think that if an 'unknown' group and a highly reputable group submitted the exact same manuscript to Nature ... well ... you know where I'm going with this.

There may be some truth in that, but how often have you read a paper in one of the big journals, like Nature, Science or Cell, for example, and thought "this is nonsense, it should not have been published"? Pretty rarely, right? These journals haven't developed the reputations they have for nothing.

That said, their dominance is most definitely being challenged - there are a lot of journals out there these days. Look at the success of PLOS one for example. That and the fact that reliance on indicators such as impact factor in assessing scientists' work is being re-examined.

Kevster

Okay, it's not a 'joke', but it's neither ideal and could be improved. Having published a few times, I get to see what reviewers write (I have also reviewed things myself), and sometimes they clearly put no effort into it. I have even found reviewers looking up my profile on LinkedIn.

The PLOS journals are indeed doing quite well, and I hope that they really challenge the top dogs, as far as journals go. However, I want to see a third group of journals that charge no fees whatsoever for publishing. With PLOS, you still have to pay a few hundred to pay for the Open Access.

I remember when we had our manuscript accepted in Genome Research (and another in Oncogene) and the fees to just publish with a few colour figures ran into the 1000s of British pounds.

...of course there is also a hint of sour grapes in all this, as I have had manuscripsts rejected by Nature Genetics and Nature Reviews Cancer!

djpbarry

Kevster wrote: »

Okay, it's not a 'joke', but it's neither ideal and could be improved. Having published a few times, I get to see what reviewers write (I have also reviewed things myself), and sometimes they clearly put no effort into it.

Yeah, this happens. But generally speaking editors have the good sense to take nonsense reviews with a pinch of salt.

Although, sometimes daft reviews are not altogether pointless. I had three reviewers of my last paper, two of whom were fairly positive, but the third completely missed the point of the paper, possibly deliberately. But, I still revised the paper such that the revised draft could not possibly be interpreted in the way that this particular reviewer had. So, it ended up being a better paper for it, even if I felt like I was beating my head off a wall while responding to said reviewer’s comments.

Kevster wrote: »

However, I want to see a third group of journals that charge no fees whatsoever for publishing.

Yeah, the fees can be prohibitive. I have been restricted in the past in terms of where I can afford to submit papers.

Ostrom

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, the fees can be prohibitive. I have been restricted in the past in terms of where I can afford to submit papers.

The journal I was thinking of submitting my last paper to requested a publication fee of $975 (refundable on rejection). It is published by a not-for-profit research network, and although not especially high-impact, it regularly publishes work from the best in this particular sub-field (essentially limiting publication opportunities to senior PI's with large overheads, or permanent senior staff with access to publication costs).

I went with a non-refundable €45 journal instead.

robp

Kevster wrote: »

Okay, it's not a 'joke', but it's neither ideal and could be improved. Having published a few times, I get to see what reviewers write (I have also reviewed things myself), and sometimes they clearly put no effort into it. I have even found reviewers looking up my profile on LinkedIn.

The PLOS journals are indeed doing quite well, and I hope that they really challenge the top dogs, as far as journals go. However, I want to see a third group of journals that charge no fees whatsoever for publishing. With PLOS, you still have to pay a few hundred to pay for the Open Access.

I remember when we had our manuscript accepted in Genome Research (and another in Oncogene) and the fees to just publish with a few colour figures ran into the 1000s of British pounds.

...of course there is also a hint of sour grapes in all this, as I have had manuscripsts rejected by Nature Genetics and Nature Reviews Cancer!

the concern I would have with PloS One is the quality can be low. I know they aim for the 'publish now, judge later' philosophy but really some papers are just plain bad. With the limited time I have I can't necessarily give every paper I read a deep critical assessment before I note their findings. Nature, Science are built on prestige and if PLoS don't aim for prestige I don't see how it can challenge them in anyway.

In the humanities you have some of these third tier journals existing for quite some time but they only exist as they are very small scale and barely indexed.

SaturnV

robp wrote: »

the concern I would have with PloS One is the quality can be low. I know they aim for the 'publish now, judge later' philosophy but really some papers are just plain bad. With the limited time I have I can't necessarily give every paper I read a deep critical assessment before I note their findings. Nature, Science are built on prestige and if PLoS don't aim for prestige I don't see how it can challenge them in anyway.

In the humanities you have some of these third tier journals existing for quite some time but they only exist as they are very small scale and barely indexed.

Your post implies that you rate the papers in Nature, Science etc. higher than others. Are you implying impact factor is associated with quality? Nature and Science in particular are notorious for providing insufficient methodological information to allow a true critical appraisal, and I've read plenty of junk in those, and other, high impact journals. And, of course, there are other very significant issues

The only way to assess a paper's quality is to read it, properly. Basing your assessment on where a study was published or who published it is not an appropriate shortcut.

djpbarry

SaturnV wrote: »

Nature and Science in particular are notorious for providing insufficient methodological information to allow a true critical appraisal...

That is something I do find irritating. Important methodological details are often relegated to supplemental information.

SaturnV

djpbarry wrote: »

That is something I do find irritating. Important methodological details are often relegated to supplemental information.

Yes, and it's incredible how often there is more supplemental information than actual content in the paper. It's interesting to see that some journals are reacting to this trend by abolishing supplemental information, including for example Journal of Neuroscience, which I have to say has some of the best editorial policies I've seen.

robp

SaturnV wrote: »

Your post implies that you rate the papers in Nature, Science etc. higher than others. Are you implying impact factor is associated with quality? Nature and Science in particular are notorious for providing insufficient methodological information to allow a true critical appraisal, and I've read plenty of junk in those, and other, high impact journals. And, of course, there are other very significant issues

The only way to assess a paper's quality is to read it, properly. Basing your assessment on where a study was published or who published it is not an appropriate shortcut.

I don't assume Science and Nature papers are methodological sound but I know they are almost always very novel. The trouble with Plos One is that novelty is just not always there. I have used the example of Science and Nature but there are many examples to choose from depending one's field (eg Cell, PNAS etc) where a certain novelty is virtually assured.
I really don't know if people are more or less favourable Plos One are but certainly its declining impact factor isn't helping it. I don't agree with judging an article by its journal's impact factor but certainly the impact factor is very useful for judging the journal quality.

djpbarry

robp wrote: »

I don't agree with judging an article by its journal's impact factor but certainly the impact factor is very useful for judging the journal quality.

That doesn't make sense? Impact factor is a useful measure of journal quality (it isn't, by the way), but not article quality?

robp

djpbarry wrote: »

That doesn't make sense? Impact factor is a useful measure of journal quality (it isn't, by the way), but not article quality?

Of course it does. Why be indirect when you can be direct. If you want to infer the impact of an article, its much better to refer to its own citations or some other article level metric then to use an indirect journal metric of the journal which the article happens to be in. Recently, impact factor has been criticised and rightly so, as it was wrongly being used to measure the merits of a specific scientist's papers. For example the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment in 2012 but impact factor is still valid when used appropriately for studying the impact of journals. As a citation based metric of course it has many flaws but when used within one discipline its still valid. Some would argue against all journal metrics but that is another issue.

SaturnV

robp wrote: »

Of course it does. Why be indirect when you can be direct. If you want to infer the impact of an article, its much better to refer to its own citations or some other article level metric then to use an indirect journal metric of the journal which the article happens to in. Recently impact factor has been criticised and rightly so, as it was been used wrongly to measure the merits of a specific scientist's papers. For example the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment in 2012 but impact factor is still valid when used appropriately for studying the impact of journals. As a citation based metric of course it has many flaws but when used within one discipline its still valid. Some would argue against all journal metrics but that is another issue.

Impact factor is based on the arithmetic mean of the citations of papers in that journal. The distribution of citations per article is not normally distributed. This is a pretty major problem.

There's a nice editorial on the topic here.

As you say, you can retrospectively look back at the impact of a paper by looking at the citations of that paper. The only people who benefit from the calculation of journal impact factors are the publishers of journals.

SaturnV

robp wrote: »

I don't assume Science and Nature papers are methodological sound but I know they are almost always very novel. The trouble with Plos One is that novelty is just not always there. I have used the example of Science and Nature but there are many examples to choose from depending one's field (eg Cell, PNAS etc) where a certain novelty is virtually assured.
I really don't know if people are more or less favourable Plos One are but certainly its declining impact factor isn't helping it. I don't agree with judging an article by its journal's impact factor but certainly the impact factor is very useful for judging the journal quality.

If the study is not methodologically sound, it doesn't matter if the finding is novel or not, it's not valid. I am not sure what you mean by novel, because you seem to imply there are degrees of novelty. Surely a finding is either novel, or it's not? The stated mission of the big, general journals is to publish findings that are of broad interest (and, implicitly, of potentially broad impact, although most will have little impact in reality). How does that make them more novel?

On a side note, the importance of novelty in publication makes it nigh impossible to publish studies which are replications of published studies. This has lead to the situation where post publication validation (and invalidation) is virtually absent from the literature (in many fields anyway). Once something is published it is a fait accompli. This is not a healthy situation for the research community.

On your last point, what is the value of judging journal quality?

robp

SaturnV wrote: »

If the study is not methodologically sound, it doesn't matter if the finding is novel or not, it's not valid. I am not sure what you mean by novel, because you seem to imply there are degrees of novelty. Surely a finding is either novel, or it's not? The stated mission of the big, general journals is to publish findings that are of broad interest (and, implicitly, of potentially broad impact, although most will have little impact in reality). How does that make them more novel?

I don't know how you can say most have little impact in reality when they are being cited more on average then specialist journal equivalents. A genetics paper in a specialist journal may be cited far more then an anthropology paper in Nature but the Nature anthropology paper will on average be cited far more then its equivalents in specialists journals. Duds do occur but how many are there really?

SaturnV wrote: »

On a side note, the importance of novelty in publication makes it nigh impossible to publish studies which are replications of published studies. This has lead to the situation where post publication validation (and invalidation) is virtually absent from the literature (in many fields anyway). Once something is published it is a fait accompli. This is not a healthy situation for the research community.

There is certainly a huge shortage of replication studies. Yet what you are proposing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Journals can be encouraged to publish more replication studies and special journals can be set up for this purpose. A 'publish now, review later' approach removes quality control and will facilitate poorer standards. IMO what I have seen in some studies in Plos One is methodological far weaker then anything in Science, Nature and Cell et al. The shortage of replication is the not the fault of impact factor.

SaturnV wrote: »

On your last point, what is the value of judging journal quality?

It tells you info about the field and the audience of the journal.

SaturnV

robp wrote: »

I don't know how you can say most have little impact in reality when they are being cited more on average then specialist journal equivalents.

That's precisely the problem. You can't look at the papers "on average", because "average", which is what impact factor is based on, is fundamentally the wrong number to use to describe the population of paper citations.

robp wrote: »

Duds do occur but how many are there really?

Depends on your definition of "dud" I guess. In Nature, 25% of papers account for 89% of the impact factor. Which means the majority of papers are not cited any where near to the rate suggested by the impact factor of the journal they are published in.

Interestingly, this problem seems to be more pronounced in the likes of Nature. This shows some very interesting comparisons between Nature and more specialist journals.

They also note that around half of Nature papers are never cited. So I guess then answer is that around half of the papers are "duds".

robp wrote: »

A 'publish now, review later' approach removes quality control and will facilitate poorer standards.

Will it though? You need empirical data to back up this assertion, and this will take time. Nobody can honestly answer this question yet.

robp wrote: »

The shortage of replication is the not the fault of impact factor.

This is true. It is a much more complex problem that is not easy to solve unfortunately.

robp wrote: »

It tells you info about the field and the audience of the journal.

I don't know what you mean here.