Journal of Citation Reports, was Status of Merendera
Hannon (Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:06:13 PST)
Tim makes a good point, but then there are those subtleties he
mentions. Notable among these is that the highest profile journals he
indicates are the most cutting edge and at the forefront of scientific
investigation. Charting new frontiers in knowledge, competitively, is their
strength. This does not mean that 'lesser' or more obscure journals produce
work of lesser quality, but their contributions may be less exciting within
the greater body of new scientific information. The latter can produce very
solid and practical results that will be of use to a smaller group for a
longer period of years. Such work does not try to compete with the cutting
edge (and often more fleeting) science found in the most cited journals.
Dylan
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Tim Harvey <zigur@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have to disagree. Journals such as Science or Nature are most cited
because they publish the most significant papers in a variety of fields.
While they are in the contents-sense general, competition to get papers
published in them results in the highest quality (and impact) work being
there.
Laboratories also try to choose higher rated journals in which to publish
their results, which further adds to the cycle.
I would have to add the caveat that the Botany/Taxonomy community has a lot
of idiosyncrasies, especially when it comes to peer review.
T> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:46:19 -0800> From: othonna@gmail.com> To:
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [pbs] Journal of Citation Reports, was
Status of Merendera> > Any journal that is "most cited" is also likely to be
more generalized. This> factor is independent of quality of research, which
may be as high or higher> in less circulated, specialized periodicals.>
Dylan Hannon> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Pacific Rim <
paige@hillkeep.ca> wrote:> > > Max Withers refers to ISI JSR -- :-) -- for
the rest of us, the Journal of> > Citation Reports.> > It's at> >> >
http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/….>
I confess that when I mentioned the status of publications, I was
not> > thinking statistically.> >> > For anyone who wants to consult ISI
JCR, an immediate problem is that (as> > with other online references that
try to make a profit) if one lacks an> > institutional subscription one must
either pay to get in or co
rrupt a> > friend> > with the entry code. This has to do with the
ownership of knowledge.> >> > A deeper problem is the definition of
knowledge. "Sources most cited" might> > not be the most accurate. Surely
accuracy counts most. Copernicus said in> > the 16th century that Earth
circles the Sun. Until then, for millennia,> > most> > savants had imagined,
or repeated, that the Sun circles Earth. "Sources> > most> > cited" in the
16th century would not have highlighted Copernicus. Habit,> > fashion,
ignorance, sycophancy, doziness, fear for one's life: nonsense is> >
repeated for many reasons.> >> > This said, from time to time I read the
"most cited" journals that Max> > mentions. When I can gain access to them.
;-)> >> > Paige Woodward> > paige@hillkeep.ca> > http://www.hillkeep.ca/> >> >
----- Original Message -----> > From: "Max Withers" <maxwithers@gmail.com>>
To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:23 PM>
Subject: Re: [pbs] Status of Merendera> >> >
A professional could probably answer this easily, but a quick look
at> > > ISI JSR (which determines the "impact factors" of scientific
journals,> > > basically by the frequency of cited articles) shows that
Taxon has the> > > highest factor (2.524) of any journal devoted
specifically to> > > systematics. Systematic Botany (NYBG) is 1.632;
Botanical Journal of the> > > Linnean Society is 1.075. They don't cover
Bot. Jb. fur Systematik.> > >> > > The Annual Review of Plant Biology has
the highest impact factor in the> > > plant sciences, at 18.712, but all the
rest are below 10. Nature, by> > > contrast, is 28.751.> > >> > > Max
Withers> > > Oakland CA> > .org/mailman/listinfo/pbs> > >
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> > >> >> >
_______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> >
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> >
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >>
_______________________________________________> pbs m
ailing list> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php>
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/