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

Dr Brian Taylor dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com
Tue Apr 14 17:34:31 CDT 2015


Citation Index was being actively promoted over 40 years ago and even
earlier my then boss (a medic) commented that as a scientist I "had to
publish or perish", so it is a bit late to hope to change that system.  As a
taxonomist take comfort in that fact that we cite papers, e.g Linnaeus, that
go back well over 200 years.




On 14/04/2015 23:18, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

> Fred asked: Why does anyone participate in this business, and how did it
> obtain its stranglehold on evaluations?

An interesting question, for which I
> will suggest tentative answers. Firstly, it is more sensible in theory than it
> is in practice. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, an article with more citations
> is "better" (more relevant to science and/or society) than one with fewer
> citations. Of course, one with 10 citations isn't really better than one with
> 9 citations, but one with 1000 citations is better than one with 10. But, the
> crucial point is that ALL OTHER THINGS ARE NEVER EQUAL! We are now in a silly
> position of comparing apples with strawberries, rather than apples with
> apples! Secondly, I think we need to understand it from the perspective of
> managers. They are not in a position to judge "quality", so they try to
> quantify "quality" by way of some objective measure. The problem is that when
> you put together the above two factors, the result is
> nonsense!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Wed,
> 15/4/15, Fred Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] are
> journal-ranking algorithms code-compliant?
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> Received: Wednesday, 15 April, 2015, 10:55 AM
 
 On 4/14/2015 4:38 PM,

> Michael A. Ivie wrote:
 > If anyone is
 thinking that citing the paper is
> going to help impact
 > factors, think again, as only the
 citations in the
> first 2  years post
 >
 publication are counted.  The half-life of a
> taxonomic
 paper may be 50
 > years, but that does
 not matter.
 
 * bringing
> the
 discussion back to my initial point of the foolishness of
 
 this
> procedure. Why does anyone participate
 in this business, and how 
 did it
> obtain its
 stranglehold on evaluations?
 
 fred.

> ------------------------------------------------------------
        
>    Frederick W. Schueler
 & Aleta Karstad
 Daily Paintings -
> http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
 Vulnerable Watersheds -
> http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
 Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills -
> http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
      RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario,
 Canada K0G
> 1T0
     on the Smiths Falls
 Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
  

>    (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/

> ------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
 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.

> 
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing
> List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/list
> info/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.






More information about the Taxacom mailing list