Apparently #Clarivate's Web of Science, one of the major proprietary indexes that employers use to determine whether papers in a journal can be considered in tenure & promotion decisions, denied @joss 's request to be indexed without even telling us. This is not the first time JOSS has been rejected
I checked their "objective review criteria" and JOSS easily passes all the qualifications.
Speaking strictly as my own opinion, not in my role as a JOSS editor or reviewer, but as a matter of fact these indexers are a fucking racket.
@jonny @joss If I could boost this multiple times I would. I've seen institutions and grant/job applications specifically asking for IF of papers and/or asking for 'x papers with IF>y' as a tenure/promotion requirement. I have even heard 'too bad you published in <very decent and actually quite famous journal>, it would have been better not to have that on your CV. This is (part of) what drives bad science and often it's driven by entitled people who don't realise they got lots of high IF papers because they come from 'big name's laboratories that have the political power to publish anything wherever they want.
I think we all know too many examples of very shaky science published in big journals...
@nicolaromano @jonny @joss High IF journals then ask for mandatory APCs (now close to 1/2 of graduate term funding). IF is just one heuristic that is too easy to overuse, because the alternative is to read all the papers with care and appreciation.
In a way that's fortunate: such signal clearly indicates which institutions you most definitely do not want to work at. Because those are institutions led by cowards who wouldn't for anything in this world use their own judgement to evaluate a piece of research or a scientist, and instead hide behind the judgement of others such as journal editors and their pick of reviewers, salted by self-reinforcing power dynamics. Many in leadership positions aren't even aware that this is their strategy, instead being convinced of having a standing on a high moral ground. They were promoted supposedly for their prowess as scientists – if not mismeasured by impact factors; yet such is the depth of their incompetence as leaders and as academic administrators.
@nicolaromano nothing to add but amen.