Journal of Citation Reports, was Status of Merendera

Tim Harvey
Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:46:05 PST
I have to disagree. Journals such as Science or Nature are most cited because they publish the most significant papers in a variety of fields. While they are in the contents-sense general, competition to get papers published in them results in the highest quality (and impact) work being there.
Laboratories also try to choose higher rated journals in which to publish their results, which further adds to the cycle.
I would have to add the caveat that the Botany/Taxonomy community has a lot of idiosyncrasies, especially when it comes to peer review.
 T> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:46:19 -0800> From:> To:> Subject: Re: [pbs] Journal of Citation Reports, was Status of Merendera> > Any journal that is "most cited" is also likely to be more generalized. This> factor is independent of quality of research, which may be as high or higher> in less circulated, specialized periodicals.> Dylan Hannon> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Pacific Rim <> wrote:> > > Max Withers refers to ISI JSR -- :-) -- for the rest of us, the Journal of> > Citation Reports.> > It's at> >> >….> >> >> > I confess that when I mentioned the status of publications, I was not> > thinking statistically.> >> > For anyone who wants to consult ISI JCR, an immediate problem is that (as> > with other online references that try to make a profit) if one lacks an> > institutional subscription one must either pay to get in or corrupt a> > friend> > with the entry code. This has to do with the ownership of knowledge.> >> > A deeper problem is the definition of knowledge. "Sources most cited" might> > not be the most accurate. Surely accuracy counts most. Copernicus said in> > the 16th century that Earth circles the Sun. Until then, for millennia,> > most> > savants had imagined, or repeated, that the Sun circles Earth. "Sources> > most> > cited" in the 16th century would not have highlighted Copernicus. Habit,> > fashion, ignorance, sycophancy, doziness, fear for one's life: nonsense is> > repeated for many reasons.> >> > This said, from time to time I read the "most cited" journals that Max> > mentions. When I can gain access to them. ;-)> >> > Paige Woodward> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----> > From: "Max Withers" <>> > To: <>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:23 PM> > Subject: Re: [pbs] Status of Merendera> >> >> > >A professional could probably answer this easily, but a quick look at> > > ISI JSR (which determines the "impact factors" of scientific journals,> > > basically by the frequency of cited articles) shows that Taxon has the> > > highest factor (2.524) of any journal devoted specifically to> > > systematics. Systematic Botany (NYBG) is 1.632; Botanical Journal of the> > > Linnean Society is 1.075. They don't cover Bot. Jb. fur Systematik.> > >> > > The Annual Review of Plant Biology has the highest impact factor in the> > > plant sciences, at 18.712, but all the rest are below 10. Nature, by> > > contrast, is 28.751.> > >> > > Max Withers> > > Oakland CA> > .org/mailman/listinfo/pbs> > >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________> pbs mailing list>>>

More information about the pbs mailing list