you are absolutely right and it was not my aim to support it. But it is
done in many institutions, unfortunately.
daniel chateigner
At 10:24 AM 3/28/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello all:
>
> As an "amateur observer" of this mailing list, I have barely
>participated
>to any discussion in the past. However, when I read about ranking journals
>for
>more accurate evaluation of citations, I couldn't help to myself to comment.
> I believe that an attempt of this kind is an ill-posed problem. Who
>on earth
>will rank the journals, and on what grounds? For instance, Philosophical
>Magazine is
>highly acclaimed journal in Europe, especially in the UK. However, it is not
>as widely
>read as Phys. Rev. in my opinion. To someone residing in US Phys. Rev B
>might have
>a much higher weight, whereas the opposite might be true for someone living
>in the UK.
>Similar examples can be given but I believe the situation is clear.
>Furthermore, there are
>numerous papers published in an array of "good" journals where powder
>diffraction as the
>"main tool", however, the emphasis is purely on science & engineering. Those
>journals are
>mostly not related to diffraction, e.g. Acta Materiala, J. Appl. Phys., Jpn.
>J. Appl. Phys. etc etc.
>As you may have realized, the example I gave is not from the diffraction
>community per se. While
>the efforts could be confined to powder diffraction journals only, such an
>attempt would be more
>a diservice than good-service to the diffraction community. It is clear to
>me that ranking journals by
>"weight" is a futile endeavor which will do no good to anyone.
> Cordially submitted,
>
>E. K. Akdogan, Ph. D.
>Research Associate
>
>Center for Ceramic Research
>Rutgers University
>607 Taylor Road
>Piscataway, NJ 08854-8065
>Phone: (732)-445 5614
>Fax : (732)-445 5577
>E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Chateigner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:55 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Most cited powder diffraction papers
>
>
>I agree on Alan's remark Armel,
>
>and also on superconductor-related papers that could have artificially high
>levels of citation. It will be very hard however to satisfy everybody
>without putting all the citations about crystallography ! There are so many
>fields and so many interests.
>
>We may have a look at Cambridge (UK) Univ, before hiring someone they
>consult (if I remember correctly, that's what I heard from Ekhard Salje), a
>procedure that weights for the journal rank. Well, a beginning already !
>
>daniel
>
