I hope the below information is useful to all on ECOLOG and not taken in the wrong manner.
1) If anyone has problems with ECOLOG or other listservs most email systems provide a way to filter your emails into folders automatically. This way you do not have them disturbing your work or other activities. I do this and it genuinely improved time management and productivity because I am not tempted to open every email. I usually check ECOLOG out when not busy rather than allowing it and several other scientific listserves get in the way. It is really great because this allows me to benefit from the comments, whether they be useful or ill-informed. It also allows me to read them when I am not stressed working on other important things. This allows me to comment more cordially, rather than snapping off some kind of rip on people who mean well. None of us knows everything about everything, and many of us know enough about somethings to be damaging. But, as members of the ecological research community it is as much our responsibility to inform others of their ill-informed/lacking background (usually its dated) as it is to voice our own informed background. Debates are healthy for science, even if they might be based on an ill-informed remark. For example, earlier I made a trite comment about landscape ecology which was rightfully responded too. I was trying to be brief, the follow up was very to the point so no one got confused. I was very happy someone pointed out in case some student or other individual was not as educated as are we on the matter. I prefer people speak up with questions, I would certainly hate to be in a classroom with someone who only wanted hands raised by the few who already understand. In any case, these comments need not clog up an email box if you either learn how to use the tools available in the email system or obtain help from your institutional staff who are far more informed on its usage than most of us! 2) ISI no longer manages, owns or is affiliated in any way with Science Citation Index. They sold it to Thomson Reuters decades ago. The frequent reference to impact ratings and citations in journals cited by ISI is a problem because it holds on to an idea that is largely no longer accepted. ISI was a not-for-profit that owned SCI and used it to advise librarians on which journals to purchase. The impact ratings were adapted to "rate" journals by quality, although these numbers were never intended to relate quality but rather to relate the general audience of the journal. Science had more citations because it was read by a wider swath of researchers than the J of Gasteroenterology. When Thomson-Reuters purchased SCI from ISI it began to promote it vigorously as the last word in journal quality, and later of researcher stature. In fact, for a time, the J of Gasteroenterology was eliminated from the SCI impact ratings due to high self citation rules which made no sense in this case! Now, SCI is largely accessed via Science Citation Reports and Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index expanded are largely part of a lost era. The Thomson-Reuters impact ratings are hardly the last word in the citation game. Scopus has its own rating system, Google Scholar does it as well, and Harzing's Publish or Perish will also do it using the Google Scholar database. The strength of P&P is that it will give you a pile of citation statistics that more accurately allow you to analyze the citation level of a journal, or researcher for that matter. The misinformation that is promoted by use of ISI in lieu of Thomson-Reuters is significant and we should really try not to use the former when addressing this subject, because it promotes ideas that are largely inaccurate and at best, dated. (yes, we all do it, me too!). On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Thomas J. Givnish <[email protected]> wrote: > Gentlepeople – > > I would like to offer two suggestions. > > > First, we each restrict our commentary to topics about which we, as > individuals, are experts. > > > Second, each individual should restrict the number of commentaries offered > per month to the number of times that individual's publications were cited > during all of last year, according to ISI. > > > Generally, ECOLOG-L is consulted by grad students and post-docs looking for > jobs and informed advice about field techniques, analytical approaches, and > job hunting. ECOLOG-L serves those purposes well. But when a few individuals > repeatedly offer their opinions – which are frequently ill-informed – it > clogs up thousands of email boxes across the country, spreads misinformation, > and raises the hackles of people who know better and feel compelled to rebut > the errors. My two proposals, if self-policed, would eliminate all these > problems and insure that a larger share of the opinion traffic is solidly > based. Everyone is entitled to free speech, but if in a given month your > opinion comments exceed ALL of your field-wide citations from last year, > perhaps it's time to think about whether large numbers of folks want to hear > what you have to say, when you want to say it, as frequently as you would > like to say it. > > > Cheers, Tom > > Thomas J. Givnish > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany > University of Wisconsin > > [email protected] > http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 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! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle 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.
