Re: [xmca] Publish and/or Perish: ISI practices

Hi Peter,
I wonder: does the assessment ponders what you published besides
where you published? I mean, is there any consideration to the ideas
advanced per se? If yes, how are they assessed?
David

On Jul 8, 2008, at 6:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:

> A few things in response to this email and others:
>
> First, I recognize that impact rankings are insufficient in many
> ways, much
> like the US News and World Report university rankings, which also
> are gamed
> by institutions (e.g., waiving application fees to increase
> applications
> solely for the purpose of rejecting more applicants make the school
> appear
> more competitive). Believe me, I know that the system is flawed, as
> are most
> systems that make much of a handful of indicators.
>
> At the same time, the journals I think highly of and read do tend
> to get
> high impact scores, so the impact rankings are not insignificant.
> Like an
> SAT score on an application, it doesn't mean everything, but it
> also doesn't
> mean nothing.
>
> As to how I use an impact score on a tenure/promotion review: I
> tend to
> review cases in which many people with decision-making power are not
> entirely familiar with the candidate's field. My own field is English
> Education, and so I review a lot of English Ed faculty who tend to
> be in one
> of two types of departments, or activity settings if you will: An
> English
> department, where the person occupies the 3rd of 3 status tiers
> (English
> literature rules, Composition and Rhetoric is a minor field, and
> English Ed
> is the dog who gets kicked at the end of a bad day--the closer a
> faculty
> member is to the rank-and-file proletariat, the lower the status of
> the
> position). In a College of Education, most English Ed faculty are in a
> Curriculum and Instruction department, which takes the "Noah's Ark"
> approach
> of housing two of every kind: two Social Studies Ed (one secondary,
> one
> elementary), two English Ed, and so on. The people in Mathematics
> Ed might
> not know the relative status of the journals and English Ed faculty
> member
> might know, so I profile each journal. Here are some samples. Not all
> include an impact factor, because not all journals are on the list.
> The idea
> is to include impact factor as part of the review of each journal.
> Because I
> write a lot of reviews of t/p cases (about 40 thus far), I maintain a
> journal databank so that I don’t have to reinvent the wheel with each
> evaluation I write, which has numbered as many as 9 in one year.
>
> OK, here are some journals I've profiled that include impact
> rankings. I'll
> throw in one for which I don't have an impact ranking just for
> purposes of
> contrast:
>
> The American Journal of Education is a high-stature journal edited
> at the
> University of Chicago and published by the University of Chicago
> Press.
> Throughout its history—and it has been published consecutively
> since 1891—it
> has been a premier journal, often with a 10% acceptance rate or
> less. I am
> perhaps biased in my high regard for AJE, having earned my M.A.T.
> and Ph.D.
> at the University of Chicago, having served on the journal’s editorial
> board, and having published two articles and a book review in it
> myself. But
> I believe that it ranks among the best general-interest education
> journals,
> along with Teachers College Record, Harvard Educational Review,
> American
> Educational Research Journal, and a select handful of other journals.
> Average rank in impact factor among all educational research journals,
> 1999-2005: 53rd; Highest rank: #18 (see
> http://www.sciedu.ncue.edu.tw/board_docs/SSCI2005-1999.doc)
>
> Anthropology and Education Quarterly is the journal of the Council on
> Anthropology and Education, a professional association of
> anthropologists
> and educational researchers affiliated with the American
> Anthropological
> Association. It is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal with a
> distinguished
> reputation. According to the journal website, in 2003 the editors
> accepted
> 11% of manuscripts submitted for review (including both initial
> submissions
> and revised and resubmitted papers), making it among the field’s
> most highly
> selective journals. Average rank in impact factor among all
> educational
> research journals, 1999-2005: 61.67th; Highest rank: #37 (see
> http://www.sciedu.ncue.edu.tw/board_docs/SSCI2005-1999.doc)
>
> College Composition and Communication is a refereed journal
> published by the
> National Council of Teachers of English with an acceptance rate
> between
> 10%-25%. I haven’t read this journal is quite a few years, but it
> is the
> journal for scholars concerned with writing instruction and
> assessment at
> the university level. The Conference on College Composition and
> Communication, which sponsors the journal, holds the field’s
> primary annual
> meeting for first-year composition faculty and others interested in
> composition theory and its politics.
>
> Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal is the
> peer-reviewed, quarterly official journal of the International
> Society for
> Language Studies. It identifies its contributions as
> multidisciplinary and
> international, and accepts about 20% of submitted articles.
> According to its
> website, “CILS seeks manuscripts that present original research on
> issues of
> language, power, and community within educational, political, and
> sociocultural contexts with broader reference to international and/or
> historical perspective. Equally welcome are manuscripts that
> address the
> development of emergent research paradigms and methodology related to
> language studies. Though CILS seeks to present a balance of
> research from
> contributing disciplines, interdisciplinary foci are encouraged.” The
> journal boasts an impressive editorial board, including Michael Apple,
> Dennis Baron, Charles Bazerman, Sari Knopp Biklen, Carole Edelsky,
> James
> Gee, James Lantolf, Cynthia Lewis, Allan Luke, Donaldo Macedo,
> Alastair
> Pennycook, Guadalupe Valdés, and other luminaries. Although I am not
> familiar with the journal, its profile suggests that it is a
> journal of some
> stature, and that a publication listing with CILS is an asset to one’s
> curriculum vita.
>
> Curriculum Inquiry is a highly regarded “niche” journal (i.e., one
> that
> features a particular research topic) published by Blackwood, a
> respectable
> publisher of educational materials. I am not familiar with this
> journal
> other than by reputation, but found some impressive encomium by
> distinguished researchers at the journal’s website:
> "One of the top general education journals. It is the finest
> publication in
> the English speaking world that focuses on curriculum planning,
> teaching and
> evaluation."
> Elliot Eisner, Stanford University, USA
> "One of the most lively and stimulating journals. Its dedication to
> exploring issues and pursuing debates, across a wide range of
> issues, is
> second to none. "
> Martyn Hammersley, Open University, UK
> "One of the few education journals to open up contemporary theoretical
> perspective on general education."
> Maxine Greene, Columbia University, USA
> Given the stature of these commentators, it would be hard to regard
> Curriculum Inquiry as anything but a powerhouse journal in the area of
> curriculum studies. Average rank in impact factor among all
> educational
> research journals, 1999-2005: 79.16th; Highest rank: #66 (see
> http://www.sciedu.ncue.edu.tw/board_docs/SSCI2005-1999.doc)
>
>
>
> Peter Smagorinsky
> The University of Georgia
> 125 Aderhold Hall
> Athens, GA 30602
> smago@uga.edu/phone:706-542-4507
> http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Eugene Matusov
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 6:23 PM
> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> Cc: jewett@udel.edu; 'UD-PIG'; 'Tonya Gau Bartell'; 'Bob Hampel';
> rosa@udel.edu; rhayes@mundo-r.com
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Publish and/or Perish: ISI practices
>
> Dear XMCA folks--
>
>
>
> I'm also concerned with the apparent proliferation of the ISI web of
> knowledge practices of rating academic journals for evaluation of
> scholarship. I'm not very knowledgeable about it and do not have
> firsthand
> experience of it (fortunately for me!) but I have heard from my
> foreign
> colleagues their concerns and stories about the proliferation of
> the ISI in
> the academia.
>
>
>
> Here I want to offer my tentative analysis of the ISI practice
> using what I
> call "questionable claims." These are my claims based on my limited
> experiences of participation in academia, observations, stories of my
> colleagues, rumors, speculations and so on. I treat them cautiously
> because
> although they may sound very reasonable (at least for me), they can be
> partially or fully wrong.
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#1. Academic practice involves summative
> assessment of a
> scientist's contributions to the field of the scientist
> specialization and
> (claimed) expertise. These summative assessments are often both
> qualitative
> and quantitative by their nature. Like any summative assessment,
> summative
> assessments in the academia are about sorting people on success and
> failure.
> Institutionally recognized successes provide the person with access to
> social goodies while institutionally recognized failures block this
> access.
> My observation on the US academia suggests the following commonly
> occurring
> summative assessments in the institutional academia:
>
> A. Defended vs. non-defended dissertation;
>
> B. Getting vs. not getting an academic job;
>
> C. Renewal vs. non-renewal a contract;
>
> D. Getting tenure vs. not getting tenure;
>
> E. Getting promotion vs. not getting promotion;
>
> F. Publishing vs. non-publishing a scholarly manuscript in a
> recognized
> publication source (a peer-reviewed journal, book, and so on);
>
> G. Getting vs. not getting a research grant;
>
> H. Getting good vs. bad annual evaluation form the department
> administration (in my institution, this is probably least
> consequential
> summative assessment);
>
> I. Did I miss something?
>
>
>
> Many (but not all) of the listed summative assessments depend on
> 1F, namely,
> academic publications. That is why “publish or perish” is a rather
> accurate
> motto. Interestingly enough, but even dissertation defense can be
> linked to
> publications. For example, in Norway (University of Bergen), I
> observed
> dissertation defense that required publication of 3 journals in
> selected
> peer-reviewed academic (international or nation) journals. These
> publications, republished in a special brochure with some
> explanations,
> constitute the dissertation itself. But as far as I know, it is not a
> practice in US (am I wrong?).
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#2. Summative assessment is unavoidable and good
> for the
> science practice for the following reasons:
>
> A. “Dead wood”: It is a good idea for the practice of science (and
> arguably
> academic teaching – but this is even more questionable) to weed out
> people
> who do not do science;
>
> B. “Limited resources”: Since resources are always limited, it is
> a good
> idea to prioritize supporting highly productive, important, and/or
> promising
> scientists and their research programs over less or non productive,
> important, and/or promising ones;
>
> C. “Accountability”: The society puts its trust and needed
> resources in the
> science practice and, thus, it legitimately expects that somebody
> would
> supervise the science practice delivering on its promise of its social
> contract with the society;
>
> D. “Quality of scholarship discourse”: It is arguably a good idea
> for the
> science practice itself to involve scientists in debating what
> constitutes
> the quality of their scholarship;
>
> E. “Focus”. Summative assessment creates necessary focus of what
> texts,
> ideas, and people are important and worth attention from others and
> resources;
>
> F. “Scientific reputation.” Summative assessment can help create
> and enact
> scientific reputations needed for effective science making;
>
> G. “Professionalization of science.” If the science practice wants to
> remain professional and recognized as such by the society, it
> should have
> self-policing in a form of summative assessments;
>
> H. Did I miss something?
>
>
>
> Thus, if I’m correct that there is a great extrinsic and intrinsic
> need for
> summative assessments of scholars’ contributions, the issue is not
> whether
> to do or not but by whom and how.
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#3. Summative assessment can be very painful for the
> assessed scholar and detrimental for the science practice at large:
>
> A. “Pain and distraction”. Since summative assessment sorts people
> for
> those who get social goodies and those who will be denied these
> goodies;
> professional, psychological, social, and economic well-being of the
> assessed
> (and often their families) can be in jeopardy. It often leads to
> anxiety,
> depression, and pain distracting the assessed scientists (and their
> environment) from the science making practice itself (and other
> related
> professional practices);
>
> B. “Error#1 demoralization”. There is always a possibility that
> one who
> deserves the social goodies won’t get them as a result of the
> summative
> assessment;
>
> C. “Error#2 demoralization”. There is always a possibility that
> one who
> does not deserve the social goodies will get them as a result of the
> summative assessment;
>
> D. “Abuse”. There is always a possibility that summative
> assessment can be
> diverted by personal, social, or political interests that are
> nothing to do
> with the summative assessment of the scholar’s contributions to the
> academic
> field (this may include, for example, paradigm wars, political
> suppression
> of scientific results, and even sexual harassment);
>
> E. “Culture of fear”. Summative assessment creates a culture of
> fear in
> scientific communities and institutions, in which people are afraid
> to do
> and to say what they want to (or even must) do and say because they
> are too
> concerned (often justifiably) that what they do and say may affect
> their
> summative assessments performed by others near them;
>
> F. “Long term contributions”. Sometimes it takes long time for a
> particular
> contribution to mature and to be recognized by a scientific community;
>
> G. “Reducing risks, innovations, and creativity by conforming to
> the status
> quo”. Summative assessment often pushes scholars to play safe by
> not taking
> risks and by stifling their own creativity because they are afraid
> that
> radical innovations in their scholarship might not be recognized by
> many who
> will perform the summative assessment or in time of the assessment;
>
> H. “Quality vs. quantity: Paper tiger.” It is difficult to decide
> how fully
> to take into account the quality and quantity of someone’s
> scholarship.
> Summative assessment often forces scholars to do a lot of research
> papers
> rather than to invest time and efforts on a few or even one but better
> quality. There is also possible proliferation of a community of
> scholarly
> writers over scholarly readers;
>
> I. “Medium bias”. Scientific contributions are often reduced to
> published
> texts authored by the assessed scholars. Individual authorship is
> prioritized over collective. However, it can be argued (and shown
> through
> anecdotes) that other contributions (such as oral or through certain
> actions) can be very important for the science practice. These
> contributions
> are not often appreciated and evaluated by existing summative
> assessments;
>
> J. “Inhibition of learning”. Summative assessments, focused on
> revealing
> and punishing the candidate’s deficits, makes mistake-making, the
> foundation
> of any learning, costly. People often inhibit their own learning by
> hiding
> their mistakes and not asking for help;
>
> K. “Culture of distrust and adversary”. Being summatively assessed by
> colleagues can easily create long lasting adversaries in scientific
> communities (it is often painful to know that some of your
> colleagues think
> that your scholarship is mediocre);
>
> L. “Quality is a part of scholarship.” Defining the quality of
> scholarship
> and what the scholarship is are a part of scholarship itself.
> Summative
> assessment itself has to be scrutinized by the scientific discourse
> (and
> thus, arguably stop being summative assessment);
>
> M. “Future is unpredictable.” Past performance cannot always
> predict future
> performance in both directions: successful past performance may
> lead to poor
> future performance and poor past performance can lead to excellent
> future
> performance;
>
> N. Did I forget something?
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#4. There are three major types of summative
> assessment:
>
> A. Mainly judgment-based (e.g., professional peer review);
>
> B. Mainly procedure-based (e.g., the ISI web of knowledge rating of
> journals and citation rates of the candidate’s publications can be
> used for
> developing a formula calculating “the contribution score” of the
> candidate.
> If the score is higher than the certain numerical criterion, the
> candidate
> is successful, if not; he or she fails the evaluation. As far as I
> know, a
> similar procedure-based system is used in Spain. Am I right?);
>
> C. Judgment-procedure hybrid (e.g., the candidates’ publications
> can be
> limited to those published in “respectful journals” usually defined
> by the
> ISI practice – i.e., a procedure-based model, -- but those
> publications are
> still professionally peer-reviewed by recognized experts, -- i.e., a
> judgment-based model).
>
>
>
> Peter, you wrote, “I really can't explain or defend the charts and how
> they're compiled; I simply provide one that I use when evaluating
> tenure/promotion cases.” Can you describe, please, how do you use
> the ISI to
> do summative assessments in your institution (e.g., to evaluate
> tenure/promotion cases)?
>
>
>
> In my institution, School of Education at the University of Delaware,
> summative assessments are mainly judgment-based. My colleague Bob
> Hampel and
> I wrote recently a paper on this issue at
> http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/JF/Feat/matu.htm
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#5. A procedural model of summative assessment in
> academia
> has several advantages over a judgment-based model:
>
> A. Summative assessments and following administrative decisions
> can be made
> by people alienated from the field of the candidate or even by non-
> scholars
> (i.e., administrators);
>
> B. It is time, effort, and people effective (however, the ISI has
> to be
> paid for the data);
>
> C. It does not rely on accurate identification of experts in the
> field of
> the candidate’s specialization (and/or paradigm);
>
> D. It is impersonal and alienated (this is often confused with
> “objectivity”) and as a consequence it has following benefits:
>
> a. It is legally defensible;
>
> b. It is always procedurally fair and perceptually less arbitrary
> from case
> to case (it be not necessarily true in reality since the biases of
> the ISI
> are hidden and not transparent);
>
> c. It is psychologically and socially safer (imagine that you
> failed some
> institutional summative assessment – it is probably much easier for
> you
> psychologically and socially blame some kind of impersonal
> procedure giving
> you a lower score -- than your colleagues who personally and
> professionally
> judged your scholarship as mediocre);
>
> d. It does not affect the social climate at the workplace to make it
> adversarial (at least not as much as a judgment-based model does);
>
> E. It is unified and standard across different cases, people,
> various and
> unrelated fields of science, and administrative units of
> universities and
> ministries of Higher Education;
>
> F. It is easy for administration to institutionally balance
> “supply” of and
> “demand” for scientists by adjusting the cut-off criterion number
> of their
> “contribution score”;
>
> G. Did I forget something else?
>
>
>
> I wonder if these benefits drive proliferation of the ISI practice
> and other
> procedural models in academia across the world. Or is it something
> else that
> I missed?
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#6. A judgment-based model of summative
> assessment in
> academia has several advantages over a procedural model:
>
> A. Judgment-based summative assessment can be more meaningful and
> contextual than a procedure-based one;
>
> B. It is nuanced;
>
> C. It can take into account more complex, contextual, and substantive
> factors than just mechanical factors such as, for example: 1) a
> journal rate
> of rejections and 2) citations following the candidates’
> publications (as in
> the ISI practice);
>
> D. While judging the quality of the candidate’s scholarship, a
> judgment-based summative assessment can contextually define what
> constitutes
> this quality of scholarship for the given candidate in the given
> specific
> field of the candidate’s expertise;
>
> E. Arguably, under the right conditions, a judgment-based model of
> summative assessment can easier prevent the candidates from the
> causalities
> of paradigm wars (arguably the pool of possible professional peer
> reviewers
> can be selected to avoid a possibility of paradigm wars, while this
> can be
> hidden in the procedure-based model – it is probably easier to
> publish in
> “respected journals” for scholars belonging to the mainstream vs.
> newly
> emerging paradigms);
>
> F. Did I miss something?
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#7. A procedure-based models of summative
> assessment in
> the academia (especially ones using the ISI web of knowledge
> practice) have
> been spreading internationally and in the US.
>
>
>
> Does somebody have any data supporting or undermining this claim?
> If so, why
> does it happen now? Any ideas? Is it because, the ISI proliferation
> has
> become possible with the development of Internet?
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#8. Procedure-based models of summative
> assessment in
> academia might have the major negative consequence by making the
> entire
> science practice more conservative, less innovative, less inviting
> for a new
> scientific paradigm questioning the status quo, and encouraging
> emerging
> scholars to play safe. It can be even truer in social sciences and
> humanities than in the natural sciences.
>
>
>
> I do not know if there is any research supporting or undermining
> this claim.
>
>
>
> Questionable claim#9. By investigating reasons and concerns that
> make the
> ISI practice (and other procedure-based models of summative
> assessment) more
> attractive for administrators and scholars organized into
> department units,
> it is possible to offer to them alternative, judgment-based, models
> that
> might be still attractive to them.
>
>
>
> By the way, Peter, do you know why and historically how your
> department
> accepted the ISI procedural model of the institutional summative
> assessments? What was before it? Did you have any discussions of
> alternatives? What caused the change and how people justify the
> current
> practice? I think it can be very useful to know for us to
> understand this
> practice. In my department, so far, all attempts to introduce
> procedure-based models/policies of summative assessment have been
> defeated.
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>
>> On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky
>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:28 AM
>
>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
>
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Publish and/or Perish
>
>>
>
>> I really can't explain or defend the charts and how they're
>> compiled; I
>
>> simply provide one that I use when evaluating tenure/promotion cases.
>
>> Sorry,Peter
>
>>
>
>> Peter Smagorinsky
>
>> The University of Georgia
>
>> 125 Aderhold Hall
>
>> Athens, GA 30602
>
>> smago@uga.edu/phone:706-542-4507
>
>> http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>
>> On
>
>> Behalf Of David H Kirshner
>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:08 AM
>
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Publish and/or Perish
>
>>
>
>> Peter,
>
>>
>
>> Can you clarify a few points about the list:
>
>>
>
>> Why are some central journals, like Educational Researcher, not
>
>> included and
>
>> others, like Review of Research in Education, not listed with
>> complete
>
>> entries?
>
>>
>
>> I'm assuming from the low score for Harvard Ed Review that impact is
>
>> calculated by frequency of citation, which means that another key
>
>> measure of
>
>> journal quality--acceptance rate--is ignored. Is that correct?
>
>>
>
>> Thanks.
>
>> David
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>
>> On
>
>> Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky
>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:56 AM
>
>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
>
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Publish and/or Perish
>
>>
>
>> Attached is one "impact factor" list I found for journals in
>> education.
>
>> p
>
>>
>
>> Peter Smagorinsky
>
>> The University of Georgia
>
>> 125 Aderhold Hall
>
>> Athens, GA 30602
>
>> smago@uga.edu/phone:706-542-4507
>
>> http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>
>> On
>
>> Behalf Of Cathrene Connery
>
>> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:38 PM
>
>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Publish and/or Perish
>
>>
>
>> So, who has a list of the ISI journals? Anyone willing to share?
>
>> Cathrene
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> The BIG down side is total assimilation to the existing mainstream,
>
>> David.
>
>>>
>
>>> I personally suggest a multi-valenced approach that includes ISI
>
>>> highly rated journals and deviant ones, like MCA.
>
>>>
>
>>> Michael left out part of the GOOD news. MCA has a rating that
>>> should
>
>>> win it ISI inclusion by year's end.
>
>>>
>
>>> I assume the PLAY article for discussion made it to everyone. People
>
>>> reading this weekend?
>
>>> mike
>
>>>
>
>>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:50 PM, David Preiss <davidpreiss@uc.cl>
>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>> As a young scholar, I totally ENDORSE this petition, Michael.
>
>> Indeed,
>
>>>> I have always thought that MCA`s influence and intellectual appeal
>
>> is
>
>>>> not commensurate to its lack of inclusion in ISI. Alas, ISI! No
>
>>>> chance but to play according to its rules, I guess.
>
>>>> david
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> On Jul 4, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Hi all,
>
>>>>> Mike and I have had a conversation off line. He suggested I should
>
>>>>> write to the list. It concerns the increasing pressure on all
>>>>> of us
>
>>>>> to publish in "good" journals, and universities increasingly
>>>>> use as
>
>>>>> a measure the presence and impact factor ranking in ISI Web of
>
>>>>> Science as a measure. This is especially true for Asian countries
>
>>>>> and other countries. With my graduate students, we always make
>
>>>>> selections based on this criterion, because I want them to be
>
>>>>> successful in their home countries and careers.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> In the sciences, this has long been common practice; now the
>>>>> social
>
>>>>> sciences are swept up by the same trend. I have recently been
>
>>>>> bombarded by publishers whose journals have increased in their
>
>>>>> impact factor.
>
>>>>> Furthermore, there are a number of companies that make the
>>>>> rankings
>
>>>>> of their journal a key bit of information on the website.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> (Some of) You may be asking what this has to do with you. Well,
>
>>>>> since I have been editing journals (besides MCA, I also do
>>>>> CULTURAL
>
>>>>> STUDIES OF SCIENCE EDUCATION and FQS: FORUM QUALITATIVE SOCIAL
>
>>>>> RESEARCH), I have been asked by new faculty members about
>>>>> rejection
>
>>>>> rates, rankings, etc. And I have been asked by department heads
>>>>> and
>
>>>>> deans as well.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Some may decide to opt out, which would come with dire
>>>>> consequences
>
>>>>> for many, who might find themselves in the position of not being
>
>>>>> tenured or promoted.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Unfortunately, we (MCA) currently are not in ISI Web of Science,
>
>>>>> which places those of you who publish in the journal in an
>
>>>>> unfortunate situation.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> One of the ways in which you, the community as a whole can be
>
>>>>> proactive producing the conditions that would convince ISI to make
>
>>>>> MCA one of the listed and ranked journals is to make it a habit to
>
>>>>> cite RECENT articles you have been reading in MCA. Here is why:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> The impact factor for 2007 (which is what was made available
>>>>> just a
>
>>>>> few days ago), for example, is calculated using the following
>
>> formula:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Number of citations in 2007 referencing
>
>>>>> articles published in 2005 and 2006 impact factor =
>
>>>>>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>
>> -----
>
>> ---------------
>
>>>>> Number of citable articles
>
>>>>> published in 2005 and 2006
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> (They may not take into account self-citation, but I am not sure)
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> So the impact factor is 1 when a journal had 60 references from
>>>>> the
>
>>>>> outside while having published 60 articles (over 2005 and 2006).
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> You see, as a community, you can help yourself by citing MCA work
>
>> in
>
>>>>> other journals. With high rankings, MCA will be included in ISI
>>>>> and
>
>>>>> then you and your peers will be rated higher at your institution
>
>>>>> because it is part of ISI.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Have a nice weekend all of you,
>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>
>>>>> Michael
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Editor-in-Chief
>
>>>>> MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY
>
>>>>> Email: mroth@uvic.ca
>
>>>>> Journal: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/1074-9039
>
>>>>> Submissions: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mca
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> David Preiss, Ph.D.
>
>>>> Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones Escuela de Psicología
>
>>>> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile Av Vicuña Mackenna - 4860
>
>>>> 7820436 Macul
>
>>>> Santiago, Chile
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Fono: 3544605
>
>>>> Fax: 3544844
>
>>>> e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
>
>>>> web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/ web institucional:
>
>>>> http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>>> xmca mailing list
>
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>>>>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>> xmca mailing list
>
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> xmca mailing list
>
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> xmca mailing list
>
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> xmca mailing list
>
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

David Preiss, Ph.D.
Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
Escuela de Psicología
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Av Vicuña Mackenna - 4860
7820436 Macul
Santiago, Chile

Fono: 3544605
Fax: 3544844
e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jul 8 09:05 PDT 2008