Yes, the problem with citation indexes is that none of them include ALL journals, none account for why a paper is being cited (good example or bad!), and if your paper ends the discussion it is unlikely to get cited! These indexes are also subject to cheating by journals.
I think the most serious problem is the first listed above. ISI only includes papers that have been included in the ISI system. ISI is also now a corporately owned entity tied to many corporate journals. Hartzing's has no qualifications except that the journal has online access so that the google bot to surf the site. ISI has a number of qualifications for a journal to be included. First, the journal must be regular. This means that if two issues are release, at least one must be released before June 30th. IF three, 1 must be released before April 30th and the second before August 30th, etc. The number of issues and articles affects it to some degree, and international status is a plus. Furthermore, articles must be in English. If the journal is overly specialized it seldom appears in ISI. A few years back the Journal of gasteroenterology got cut from ISI because something like 90% of its citations were within the journal. At first this may seem strange, but in fact, JG is the leading journal in gasteroenterology and the findings, few publish this stuff outside of this journal unless it lands in JAMA and it is very well read by gasteroenterologists. Of course, this journal was reinstated through a process by which I not familiar. In my field, herpetology, we have many herp journals. Some are newer (Acta Herpetologica, Herpetological Conservaiton and Biology) and due their youth they do not appear in ISI. They do, however, show up in the publish or perish h-score and they do influence the h-score calculated by this organization. A few older herp journals, Herp Natural History adn Amphibian and Reptile Conservation never acquired ISI due to irregularity issues. ARC seems not to have recovered, although it still publishes intermittently. HNH closed a few years ago despite reorganization and release of many issues containing articles that are well cited. None of the citations within any of these 4 journals is included in the ISI citation ratings of Journal of Herpetology, Copeia, Herpetologica, or Amphibia-Reptilia. Acta Herp and Herp Cons Bio have maintained regularity and both appear to be growing and will undoubtedly obtain ISI approval within the next year or two. But, they are at a disadvantage to the corporately sponsored journals that use tactics to raise their ranking. Herp Con bio has actually been solicited by more than one journal company to be absorbed! Some corporate journals (by no means all) support the ISI rankings of their partner journals by encouraging citation of those other outlets. Here is a fake example used because I prefer not to get sued! The Journal of Gopher Guts, Gopher Press the Guts Journal, Gopher Press The gopher Journal, Gopher PRess the journal of things that live in the ground, Gopher press So, you submit an article to JGG, that is well cited. In the last stages of approval the editor contacts you with a list of citations from the other three journals. You include them because they are related. If each journal adds 1 citation from the other three per article, their citation rating will rapidly exceed the ISI rating of 1, and possibly even 2 regardless of what is being published. Now back to the independent and society backed journals. they do not have this luxury. Even ESA only has a handful of journals, and most society and independent journals cannot benefit from this strategy. An independent journal cannot self cite itself to death, and in fact must minimize this behavior to avoid a black mark from ISI, even if those self citations are very relevant! The Journal of Herpetology cannot encourage Herpetologica or visa versa to pay close attention to adding citations. In fact, their editorial staff are typically volunteer, whereas corporate journals sometimes have paid staff capable of doing the extra search. I have been investigating this stuff for four years due to my role as the editor of Herpetological Conservation and Biology. I have to say that I am not really impressed with any of the citation indexes. Just before citation ratings started taking over, I remember an advisor telling me "these are the journals you need to be cited in" and then listed off the major herp journals, "and, here are the journals that we strive to get in regularly "where he listed off a list of major journals including Ecology, American Naturalist, and a few others, and he listed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as the top spot. It seemed pretty clear what journals were good, and which were not. Now, the citation indexes have actually clouded this issue rather than refined it. What does getting cited really mean? Was your paper that good, or that bad? Is the journal's citation rating high because they strive to publish the best science, or because they strive to publish articles that will get cited? These two things are not the same! I can't recall the last time that an article had to be retracted from a herpetology journal, can you recall an article getting slammed from Nature or Science? I believe they are currently the highest rated. What does this all really mean? Should everyone of us dump our research and shoot for that Immunology review journal that routinely has an enormous rating? Is the top Ornithology Journal better than the top Herpetology Journal? And is the top Herpetology Journal better than the Top Arachnology Journal? And, why did Copeia and Herpetologica flip places in the citation rankings last year. IS Herpetologica better than Copeia? In some ways, I would rather that all the herpetologists got together and simply ranked the journals like they do in College football. We could do the same with ecology, etc. There would still be arguements, but at least there would be consensus as there was before they became the trend. I think that the citation rankings are important, they do mean something, but do they really bring consensus? I suggest only in a few fields, and maybe their utility is only to make broad statements within a field. to this day, I would much rather get published in ecology than PloS Biology. This is no slam agains PloS. I just view ecology as more prestigious. Yet, PloS had an impact rating dwarfing that of Ecology long before its articles could be interpreted as superior to those in Ecology. In fact, I can't say that I really think PloS is a better journal, or even a more widely read journal than Ecology. Its just easier to find the papers online making it easier for the lazy and those who don't know how to use bioAbstracts and Zoological Record, although it obviously helps those who have no access to such indexes due to their institutional affiliation. But, in years past people at these schools simply took a trip to a larger institution/museum and used their library. Bring on the Polls. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Jim Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thought this was really interesting! I would only add that it's those high > profile studies published in Science or Nature that attract a lot of > opposition by fellow scientists. > > Jim > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Robert Lusardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: December 3, 2008 8:57:19 PM PST >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Publish and be wrong? >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> Hi all- below please find a link to the Economist article I referenced >> during lab meeting this morning. Interesting stuff. >> >> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376658 >> >> --Rob > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours: Ecology: M,W 1-2:40 pm Cell Biology: M 6-9:40 pm (don't ask!) Forensic Science: T,R 10-11:40am Office Hours: MW 12-1, 5-6, TR 11:40-12:30, 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
