journal publication and journal lists

Jan Anward janan at ISK.LIU.SE
Mon Mar 29 16:22:15 UTC 2010

If there were a citation index that would register articles, book  
chapters, and books cited in peer reviewed articles, book chapters,  
and books, possibly from a selection of journals and publishers, I  
think there would be a more general acceptance of such measures in our  
field. As it is now, only one ninth of the citations of our works are  



29 mar 2010 kl. 18.09 skrev Arnold Zwicky:

> On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Frans Plank wrote to Nigel Vincent:
>> ... I'd assume readers have their personal rankings of what they  
>> like to read (and cite), journal-wise or self-published, in their  
>> heads or guts anyhow.  So, why bother with ERIHs and the like?  Is  
>> linguistics really such a vast enterprise that hiring and firing,  
>> promotion, funding and such business can't be done properly without  
>> such assistance -- by just reading the work someone has done,  
>> rather than checking her/his h-index?
> I can't speak for linguistics programs around the world, but in the  
> U.S., the informed opinion of the linguistics faculty is never  
> enough to serve for recommendations for hiring and firing, promotion  
> and tenure, setting salaries, etc.  Committees and administrators at  
> various levels (very few of whom know anything about linguistics,  
> much less are linguists) may require statements from the candidate,  
> evaluations of teaching, publications lists, and recommendations  
> from outside evaluators (who sometimes must themselves be  
> established as authorities on the basis of their own publications  
> list and citation indices) about research.  For some types of cases  
> at some institutions, citation indices are *required*, and often the  
> absence of such indices (even when they aren't actually required) is  
> viewed as a minus by university committees and administrators.
> So we're sometimes stuck with using citation indices, and the best  
> we can do is search for the better ones.  (And then it's not unknown  
> for higher evaluating bodies to ask pointedly why the department did  
> *not* use the "standard" Thomson Reuters indices.)
> arnold

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list