Tim makes a good point, but then there are those subtleties he mentions. Notable among these is that the highest profile journals he indicates are the most cutting edge and at the forefront of scientific investigation. Charting new frontiers in knowledge, competitively, is their strength. This does not mean that 'lesser' or more obscure journals produce work of lesser quality, but their contributions may be less exciting within the greater body of new scientific information. The latter can produce very solid and practical results that will be of use to a smaller group for a longer period of years. Such work does not try to compete with the cutting edge (and often more fleeting) science found in the most cited journals. Dylan On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Tim Harvey <zigur@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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: othonna@gmail.com> To: > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> 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 < > paige@hillkeep.ca> wrote:> > > Max Withers refers to ISI JSR -- :-) -- for > the rest of us, the Journal of> > Citation Reports.> > It's at> >> > > http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/….> > >> >> > 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 co > rrupt 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> > paige@hillkeep.ca> > http://www.hillkeep.ca/> >> > > ----- Original Message -----> > From: "Max Withers" <maxwithers@gmail.com>> > > To: <pbs@lists.ibiblio.org>> > 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> > > > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> > >> >> > > _______________________________________________> > pbs mailing list> > > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> > > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/> >> > _______________________________________________> pbs m > ailing list> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org> > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >