any comments on this critique? http://www.cwts.nl/blog?art...

Dear authors,

Please revise your abstract to say what the RCR actually IS. It's not enough to tell us how wonderful it is.

Thanks.

I applaud the NIH team for developing this new, scientifically credible metric, the RCR. I believe it can transform the debate over research assessment by giving science a more relevant and accurate instrument than highly flawed journal impact factors.

have posted more detailed comments and thoughts on the RCR paper on my blog, Activation Energy (http://www.ascb.org/nature-....

The key concept behind RCR is to base an article-level metric on the relevant
scientific network, not on a journal. The nature of the RCR can
be seen in this first analysis showing that high-impact-factor journals (JIF ≥
28) account for only 11% of papers that have high RCR (3 or above). Using the
JIF as the crucial benchmark for influential work means overlooking 89% of
similarly influential papers published in less prestigious venues.

This is exactly what the RCR can help us identify—breakthrough
papers which were published before a novel concept, technology, or investigator
became trendy. The RCR is a step toward measuring not WHERE influential work is
published but WHAT influence the work actually has. True impact is not measured
solely by collecting glamorous journal citations.

Providing full access to the algorithms and the data used to
compute the RCR metric is essential for transparency, open access, and accessibility
for the global scientific community. The NIH authors have promised that all of this
will soon be available. Well done, NIH!