journal publication and journal lists
janan at ISK.LIU.SE
Mon Mar 29 17:51:26 UTC 2010
And what would the next adaptation be? To medical science, where you
can't cite anything that is more than five years old?
29 mar 2010 kl. 19.02 skrev Martin Haspelmath:
> Jan Anward wrote:
>> 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 counted.
> Yes, but it looks like our field has to adapt to what is nomal in
> the sciences (if we want to be funded like the sciences), so if we
> published more in journals (and less in edited volumes), then the
> status of linguistics would rise, regardless of the actual quality
> of linguists' work. It would be a purely political move, but an
> effective one, and it would only require to make some changes in
> habits, not any substantial changes.
> On the other hand, I don't think we necessarily have to accept the
> supreme authority of Thomson (a big company owned by shareholders
> with no interest in science). It may well be that for the time
> being, we will do better with an "expert-opinion-based rather than
> citation-derived" system such as ERIH. Maybe our publiction habits
> (e.g. the number of papers we publish) will never become very
> similar to those of the best-funded sciences.
> Andrew Koontz-Garboden wrote:
>> once a proposal is accepted, it is a *single* reviewer that has the
>> final say on the completed manuscript, by contrast with journals,
>> which tend to have two to three reviewers, in addition to the
>> (associate) editor looking at the entire manuscript. Is this the
>> idea behind your statement, Martin, or was there something more?
> Well, it's also that journals are easier to "measure", and many of
> them are owned by scientists, not by private companies (mostly by
> scholarly associations). I've seen a French proposal to assess the
> quality of books by ranking publishers in a similar way as journals,
> but that seems very problematic. Publishers should not get
> endorsements from scientists for reasons having to do little with
> the quality of the publishers' work.
> (On the other hand, in the humanities a monograph tends to count
> more simply because more work goes into it, and replacing this
> measure by page numbers, or even word numbers in purely online
> publications, will take our field a while.)
More information about the Lingtyp