Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
Leonard Mada wrote:
...
Regarding document type, there are broadly 2 large categories of
documents, and therefore I am strongly against some of the droppibngs:
A. Peer-Reviewed Documents
B. NON-Peer-Reviewed Documents
So, you cannot mix everything in the article category, there are
really different things:
This is an interesting argument, though I'm not sure I agree with you
entirely.
A. Peer-Reviewed
=============
This is basically the article and many more standard documents.
Books are often peer-reviewed also, as are conference presentations
(you submit an abstract and can only present if approved by a
committee). This suggests it's a property rather than a type.
...
Well, an editor sees the book, but a peer-reviewed article is definitely
on a different level of scrutiny. Conference presentations are probably
still another step lower, thats why high impact meta-analysis don't use
abstracts from conferences. They wait for the article to be published in
extenso.
In general, I consider an article peer-reviewed, if it is in a journal
I know to publish peer-reviewed articles (this definition might be not
always correct, but it is practical). And even here, Nature and Science
will fare better than some lower-impact journal.
Indeed, if peer-review is a property, it could be probably inferred from
the journal (in most cases). If there is a site with the journals impact
points, we could even infer something about the quality (and impact of
the article, although only on average, and not necessarily for the
specific article).
My real concern is, that, if the category 'document' is set too large,
so that everything fits in it, than what is the purpose of this category?
Sincerely,
Leonard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
