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

Very useful advise, Peter. Thanks much for sharing this information
with the list,
David

On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:21 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:

> David et al. I can only speak for myself; if you've ever discussed a
> borderline tenure or promotion case with your colleagues, you know
> that
> people will use whatever evidence they wish to support their position
> regarding the person's credentials to earn a lifetime appointment.
>
> Regarding the quality of ideas: it depends on whether or not you
> value the
> ideas. I've seen cases where I thought the ideas were a snooze, yet
> external
> letters raved about their cutting edge quality. When I write a t/p
> evaluation, I include a review of the articles that the person has
> selected
> for my focus, giving my opinion of the contributions it has made to
> the
> field. But they solicit 4-5 other reviewers in order to get a well-
> rounded
> view. At some institutions, one negative letter by a notable
> reviewer can
> crush a case; but at others, it can be over-ridden by either other
> letters
> or the faculty's fondness for the individual under review.
>
> I would include a whole t/p letter but obviously that would be
> unethical. I
> don't wish for my view of scholarship to be characterized by my
> inclusion of
> impact rankings as one piece of a large and complex puzzle. Much
> else goes
> into the equation, if I may use another mathematical term for this
> qualitative assessment.
>
> Here's one piece of advice I got while a graduate student: When
> you're going
> up for tenure, it's OK if they don't like you; but they can't hate
> you. So
> publish your work in the best journals you feel can host your work,
> teach
> well, do your committee work, and be kind to your colleagues.
>
> 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 Preiss
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:03 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 09:33 PDT 2008