The standard most people use is the Institute for Scientific Information
(ISI) list of journals. ISI use to do Science Citation Index and now
runs databases like Web of Science (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Scientific_Information). The
criteria for selection is fairly conservative and includes peer review.
You can see an explanation here:
http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/
I tell my students that they can only use journals listed by ISI. The
list of journals is huge and I have never run into a citation from the
last few decades that I could not find by searching WoS (it only goes
back to 1977). ISI also maintains a list of "Impact Factors," which you
can use to get a rough idea of journal quality based on how often papers
get cited.
Kerry Griffis-Kyle wrote:
I am teaching a Sophomore/Junior level evolution course at Texas Tech (where a significant proportion of my students believe evolution is anti-God). One of the activities I have them do is take three creationist claims about science and use the peer-reviewed scientific literature to find evidence to support or refute the claim. It makes them really think about the issues; and if they follow the directions, it does a better job than any of my classroom activities convincing them that the claims against evolution are just a bunch of hooey. Unfortunately, there are journals claiming peer-review status that are not. It can be very frustrating.
Like Raphael, I also wonder if there is a good source the students can use as a rubric for telling if a journal article is peer-reviewed.
*****************************
Kerry Griffis-Kyle
Assistant Professor
Department of Natural Resources Management
Texas Tech University
--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Raphael Mazor <[email protected]>
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 5:03 PM
I've noticed a number of cases lately where groups with a strong political agenda (on
topics like climate change, evolution, stem cells, or human health) cite "peer
reviewed" studies in journals that are essentially fabricated for the purpose of
advancing a specific viewpoint.
What's a good way to tell when a journal is baloney? Of course, it's easy for a scientist
in his or her own field to know when a journal is a sham, but how can we let others know
it's obviously fake? For example, are only "real" journals included on major
abstract indexing services?
-- <><><><><><><><><>
Raphael D. Mazor
Biologist
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
3535 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 714-755-3235
Fax: 714-755-3299
Email: [email protected]
--
Mitchell B. Cruzan, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
P.O. Box 751
Portland State University
Portland, OR 97207
http://web.pdx.edu/~cruzan/
