[Taxacom] are journal-ranking algorithms code-compliant?

Neal Evenhuis neale at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Apr 13 19:19:16 CDT 2015


What he said.

On Stardate 4/13/15 1:44 PM, "Roderic Page" <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Hi Doug,
>
>Alas that’s not how impact factor works. It’s a function of both the
>number of articles published by a journal, and the number of citations,
>see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
>
>Given that most taxonomic work is likely to few citations (certainly over
>the two-year period typically used when calculating impact factor).
>Consider Zootaxa, far and away the largest journal in zoological
>taxonomy. In 2013 approximately a quarter of all published animal names
>were published in Zootaxa, but its impact factor in the same year was
>1.060 http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/support/impactfactor.htm
>
>A mega journal for taxonomy is pretty much exactly the wrong strategy to
>maximise impact factor.
>
>Regards
>
>Rod
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Roderic Page
>Professor of Taxonomy
>Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
>College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
>Graham Kerr Building
>University of Glasgow
>Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
>Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
>Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
>Skype:  rdmpage
>Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
>LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
>Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
>Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
>Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
>ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>
>
>On 14 Apr 2015, at 00:29, Doug Yanega
><dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>> wrote:
>
>On 4/13/15 4:01 PM, Fred Schueler wrote:
>Quoting Neal Evenhuis
><neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>:
>
>However, until employers (mainly in academia) do away with evaluating
>their employee taxonomists based on where they publish (i.e., high ranking
>journals), many taxonomists will not switch over to this zero-ranking
>registration/repository system.
>
>* I'm glad I got my unemployable badge before this ranking of individuals
>by the ranking of the journals in which they publish came in. This
>practice has always seemed to me to be an institutionalization of pure
>stinking cowardice - those seeking to violate the commandment "judge not,
>lest ye be judged" rank journals by popularity criteria solely because
>they're afraid they (perhaps as administrative trolls luring under
>academic bridges) couldn't understand the work of the person they're
>supposed to be evaluating. They fob the job off on a numerical assessment
>of the journals, and go home to supper.
>
>This is a total inversion of the taxonomic notion of "publication," in
>which it doesn't matter where you publish something, so long as it is
>available.
>Before this devolves any further (and I'm not accusing Neal or Fred of
>doing so, but I can anticipate some of the responses this may generate),
>PLEASE consider the following question very carefully:
>
>If there is only a *single* electronic venue (call it an e-journal if you
>must), where ALL new zoological taxonomic/nomenclatural acts and
>descriptions MUST appear in order for them to be available, including
>paleontology, all vertebrates and invertebrates - ALL disciplines - then
>what impact factor do you think that single venue will have? Thousands
>upon thousands of new works produced every year, all in one place, all
>with a single cited source? This is a no-brainer. No one has to worry
>that such a venue would not have enough of an impact factor to satisfy a
>tenure committee; in plain fact, any taxonomist who is worried about
>impact factor should be BEGGING for such a system to be implemented, as
>soon as is humanly possible, so they can start submitting to it! Look at
>it this way: when less than 1% of all new names appear in high-impact
>venues like Nature or Science, then the OTHER 99% of taxonomists have
>*everything to gain and nothing to lose* by joining all together into a
>single digital venue, instead of staying scattered across hundreds of
>different venues with a microscopic fraction of the readership.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>--
>Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
>Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
>phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>            http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>       is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
>
>Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.


This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.  Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list