The publishing imperative: the pervasive influence of publication metrics

This article summarizes the effects of the increasing global trend towards measuring research quality and effectiveness through, in particular, publication‐based metrics, and its effects on scholarly communication. Such metrics are increasingly influencing the behaviour patterns of administrators, publishers, librarians, and researchers. Impact and citation measures, which often rely solely on Thomson Scientific data, are examined in the context of university league tables and research assessment exercises. The need to establish alternate metrics, particularly for the social sciences and humanities, is emphasized, as is an holistic approach to scholarly communication agenda.     

Validity of Self-Reported Pedometer Steps per Day in College Students

The purpose of this article was to examine the validity of self-reported pedometer steps/day. Forty-seven participants were provided a New Lifestyles NL-2000 (NL-2000; Lees Summit, MO, USA) pedometer and a physical activity (PA) diary for 3 weeks, but not informed of the data-storing capabilities. For weeks 2 and 3, each participant was given a step goal of 3,000 steps/day above week 1 average. A 2 × 3 repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences between reported steps/day. Bland–Altman plots assessed the mean bias and limits of agreement between reporting methods. Mean self-reported and NL-2000 steps/day were 9,264 ± 3,555 and 8,971 ± 3,590 steps/day (n = 26, p > .05). Mean biases were 216 ± 1,753 (week 1), –506 ± 1,355 (week 2), and –590 ± 1,360 (week 3) steps/day. Negative mean bias values indicate higher self-reported steps/day. Mean steps/day were similar between recording methods, but large differences were observed among individuals, suggesting self-reported steps/day may be valid for PA research at the population level, but not the individual level.