I was surprized how fast this thread died. Maybe it died because the = basic value of citation frequency is so obvious to most scientists. =20 It is wrong to simply dismiss the value of this measure because it has = some error associated with it. What better measure do we have that our = work is influencing a field than the fact that people are citing it. = Where a paper is published does provide some information, but the review = process is certainly variable. What our friends and mentors are saying = about it also provides some information, again with a great deal of = uncertainity. =20 =20 I seem to have a different experience than some. I have often been on = search committes that composed of at least some people who really can't = "recognize stellar contributions to the literature" , especially since = this literature may be in an entirely different field. Why wouldn't = they benefit from some additional sorts of information. =20 In the end our legacies as academic scientists will largely be the = students we have trained, and the influence our ideas have on the = progress of Ecology as a Science. Size of grants and number of = publications might be one way to measure this. Is that really a more = reliable measure than the frequency with which your publications are = cited in other published works? =20 =20 =20 =20 Daniel A. Soluk, Assoc. Prof. Dept. of Biology University of South Dakota 414 East Clark St. Vermillion, SD 57069 ph. 605 677-6172 =20
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Malcolm McCallum Sent: Thu 8/23/2007 9:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Number of times cited in a CV? Although we are currently forced to play this game, everyone should read this article that was first brought to my attention by Ken Dodd. If you want a pdf copy, email me. It is excellent reading for those in administrative posts. The article slams the issue of citation ratings providing a solid arguement as to why they degrade the scientific = process rather than promote it. Lawrence, P.A. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology = 17(15):R584. On Thu, August 23, 2007 7:25 am, William Silvert wrote: > Alas, Susan is attacking one of the most prized strategies for = achieving > fame in science -- publish papers with errors, which will draw = critical > responses and generate tons of citations. > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Susan Kephart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:01 AM > Subject: Re: Number of times cited in a CV? > > >> Dear Jonathan: >> >> Below is my quick response on "cited X time" in CV's. Others may >> view this practice differently of course, depending on the >> institution perhaps: >> >> I've been on search committees for many years, and have seen this >> practice increasingly in recent years in applications for tenure >> track positions in liberal arts institutions that emphasize both >> research and teaching. For our searches at least, I consider it an >> unnecessary use of the applicant's time and don't recall that topic >> ever coming up as a positive in a committee meeting. At the pre- >> interview stage, my colleagues and I tend to be much more interested >> in the caliber of the paper, the rigor of peer review for the journal >> it is published in, comments on that person's research from faculty >> mentors/recommenders whose own work is highly regarded, and most >> importantly , the ability of the author to write cogently about the >> significance of his or her research, as well as how that research >> might be continued and developed in the future. A few strong papers >> in excellent journals on a CV, and a pdf of an exemplar paper can go >> a long way towards shifting someone's application up a notch than how >> many times a paper is cited IMHO . . Folks on the search committee >> should be discriminating enough to recognize stellar contributions to >> the literature without being alerted to citation frequency, or look >> it up for themselves if they care. Many citations can either mean >> a top notch research effort that is well-respected or just a popular >> topic too (which has some value at times in relation to funding). >> Also, lots of minor papers or ones where the author is rarely first >> or second author are fine for folks who just completed a PhD and are >> hunting short term sabbatical or post-doc positions but not for >> tenure track positions in general. > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
