We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Scientists’ work is often evaluated using citation statistics compiled by a US company ISI. But a group of Chinese researchers argue that the ISI’s coverage of scientific journals from non-English speaking countries is too limited, and that the livelihood of many respectable journals has been an unintended casualty.

They say that even though the ISI should not be held responsible for problems in doing science in developing countries, it can certainly be more accurate in its analysis of scientific achievements in places such as China, and thus help to promote international scientific communication.

Link to full text

Reference: Nature 415, 732 (2002)

See also:

The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits