May I ask a couple of naïve questions? Why do we count journals? If we are all looking forward to a global, hopefully distributed archive of knowledge, shouldn't we counting papers or some other way of displaying solutions? El 29/4/2015 11:13, "Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)" <[email protected]> escribió:
> I’ve always been amazed how Thomson/ISI categorized English language > journals (mostly published in de US/UK) as “international journals” and all > other journals as “regional journals”. Should ask them. > > > > BTW Eric could you elaborate on what you say in your last sentence? Will > Science Metrix launch a bibliometrics service based on GS data or do I have > to interpret your words in another way? > > > > Jeroen > > > > [image: 101-innovations-icon-very-small] 101 innovations in scholarly > communication <http://innoscholcomm.silk.co/> > > ------------------------------------------------------ > *------------------------------* > > Jeroen Bosman, faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences > > Utrecht University Library <http://www.uu.nl/library> > > email: [email protected] > > telephone: +31.30.2536613 > > mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands > > visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht > > web: Jeroen Bosman > <http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx> > > twitter @jeroenbosman/ @geolibrarianUBU > > profiles: : Academia <http://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman> / Google > Scholar <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IAAAAJ&hl=en> / > ISNI <http://www.isni.org/0000000028810209> / > > Mendeley <http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/> / > MicrosoftAcademic > <http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman> / > ORCID <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-2727> / ResearcherID > <http://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253D&Init=Yes&SrcApp=CR&returnCode=ROUTER.Success&SID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK> > / > > ResearchGate <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/> / Scopus > <http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484> / > Slideshare <http://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero> / VIAF > <http://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/> / Worldcat > <http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619> > > blogging at: I&M 2.0 <http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/> / Ref4UU > <http://ref4uu.blogspot.com/> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Trees say printing is a thing of the past* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Éric Archambault > *Sent:* woensdag 29 april 2015 0:08 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Number of Open Access journals > > > > Jean-Claude has an excellent point. > > > > Our current outlook is extremely Western-centric. When I was in SPRU, > professors (can’t remember if it was Pavitt or Ben Martin) used to joke > that bibliometric measurement was highly influenced by the linguistic > capacity of housewives in Philadelphia. Though today there might have been > a shift towards Manila for data entry, it remains that bibliographic > databases present a truncated view of the world, and bibliometrics a > distorted, pro-Western/Northern Hemisphere biased view of science. If one > can potentially advance the idea that all ground breaking science > eventually makes it to Western journals, and that this is what current > databases are reflecting, it would still remain that normal science follows > similar rules in Russia, Japan, and China and yet a huge part of that > content still goes unaccounted for. A normal US or UK paper is not any > better than a normal Brazilian, Chinese, or Russian paper yet the former > are frequently counted, the latter more frequently not. The low impact of > non-Western countries is in part a reflection of the exclusion of journals > published in non-English speaking countries, and Jean-Claude is right to > say there are thousands of them. > > > > The effect on measurement is poisonous because national level > self-citations are frequently excluded when journals are not published in > English-language journal. If one wants to see the effect of removing > national self-citation, try removing them altogether and you’ll see how > badly clobbered the US ends-up in terms of relate impact. Don’t get me > wrong, I’m not suggesting to measure that way as it would be unwise (I > always advocate the inclusion of self-citations at all levels even though > everyone knows some authors and journals are narcissistic and playing the > number game – self citations are an essential part of the > knowledge-building edifice and excluding them potentially create more > problems than it solves), but it is a valid experiment to show how bad the > situation currently is because we count only publications from half of the > journals published, and that half is anything but randomly selected. For > those who want to see the effect, I can send you a table – among countries > with 45,000 papers or more, and adjusted for scale, the US ranked 22nd > (after Japan, the Czech Republic and Mexico) if only citations from other > countries were included. We never published that paper as we thought it was > brain damaged to exclude national self-citation. Yet, by excluding many > many locally published journals from citation counts, this is what the > advanced analytics that come out of dominant bibliographic databases do, > and this is a sin that we, bibliometricians, commit every day. > > > > Hopefully open access will play a huge role in reducing the distortion > field. I can confirm there is more than 50,000 scholarly and scientific > journals the world over, not by any measure all open access, but all peer > or quality reviewed according to the norms of scholarly and scientific > communication in all fields of academia. Stay tuned, more neutral metrics > are going to be available in the near future. > > > > Eric Archambault > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Jean-Claude Guédon > *Sent:* April-28-15 9:07 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [GOAL] Number of Open Access journals > > > > I have repeatedly criticized the numbers of journals used to describe > scientific and scholarly publishing in the world. I have also regularly > criticized the use of lists such as the Web of Science, Scopus and Ulrich's > as being largely centred on the North Atlantic and/or OECD countries.As a > counter to such numbers, I have pointed out that Latin America alone, as > indicated by the Latindex vetted list, can sport over 6,000 titles. > Presumably, if Asia and Africa did the same kind of work, numbers of > 25-27,000 titles for the whole world would look funny. > > Another way to look at this is through disciplines or study areas. No one, > I suspect, would argue that Classics (Latin and Greek) is a large > speciality in the world of learning. Typically, classics departments are > small and tend to disappear. Nonetheless, one can find a list of 1498 > journal in this field, *and that list is limited to open access journals*. > > > http://ancientworldonline.blogspot.ca/2012/07/alphabetical-list-of-open-access.html > > The list dates from the summer of 2012. There may be a few more or a few > less since, but the least one may add is that such a number reveals a > publishing activity that reaches well beyond expectations (at least mine). > > Conclusion: scholarly journal publishing is a lot more complex than what > is provided by most scientometric studies. > > And a final question: who is advantaged by the illusory simplicity of the > publishing landscape? > > -- > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Professeur titulaire > > Littérature comparée > > Université de Montréal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
