摘要 : The Thomson Reuters marketing tool, the Impact Factor (IF), is currently the only global quantitative system of assessing the impact (indirectly the quality) of a journal (therein the manuscript and the authors associated with it)... 展开 The Thomson Reuters marketing tool, the Impact Factor (IF), is currently the only global quantitative system of assessing the impact (indirectly the quality) of a journal (therein the manuscript and the authors associated with it), solely as a function of referencing and/or indexing frequency. Despite its simplistic brilliance, as for any other monopolistic system in any sector of society, the IF is now beginning to have profound (negative) effects on how science is being selected, funds are being allocated and this in turn is driving science in an unnatural way, not driven any longer by core scientific values and principles, but rather by the inherent (implicit and explicit) benefits underlying the IF score of a scientific journal. This survey aspired to ascertain the notions that exist among plant scientists (n = 162) regarding the IF and how this system of quality assessment in the bio-medical sciences affects their way of conducting science and the niche in which they work and study. Twelve questions were posed and respondents could respond online with the possibility of also freely adding any additional comments. Except for one question, all other questions stowed an extremely polarized response, with 10/11 questions showing a YES: NO response ratio of > 7:3. Almost all respondents (93%) had published in an IF journal, and 72% supported the IF. Of all respondents, 60% were made to (= forced by implicit or explicit rules and regulations) publish in an IF journal. Just over half of all respondents (51%) are compensated for publishing in an IF journal while a shocking amount (70%) are reprimanded, or suffer some form of negative consequence (by their Department, Institute, Funding Agency or Government) should they not publish in an IF journal.73% of respondents felt that the IF should not be held in the hands of a media company or publisher (i.e., Thomson Reuters) and 91% felt that they had the right to know how an IF is assigned and calculated and to freely request the IF of any publicationfrom any year, i.e. the IF history of a journal. Even though 85% felt that an alternative system to the IF was required, only 24% knew of such a system, although most of these were local and not global, or had their inherent problems and limitations. Closely related to the IF, most (70%) respondents felt that print versions of journals were still important, 94% felt that publication of a manuscript should be free, while 80% felt that papers should be Open Access. Without a doubt, the IF is here to stay. However, the great displeasure, exhibited by 91% of respondents who felt that an alternative system of quantitative measurement is required, points towards a desperate need for the (plant) scientific community to act towards countering the monopolisticactivities of a single company, Thomson Reuters, by providing one or more competitive, alternative systems of assessing and quantifying the quality of science. 收起