Re: Do academic journals pose a threat to the advancement of scien=

[Philip Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

There are some interesting themes that run through the Times
Higher Ed. article:

1. Anti-authoritarianism, a disdain for power and hegemony and a
desire to 'stick it to the Man'

2. A belief that most people don't understand what citation
metrics mean and a need to protect the masses from their own
naivete.  In mass-media studies, this is known as the
Third-person Effect.

3. A lack of alternatives to citation counting and ranking

4. We'd all be better off if everyone just read the paper

Citation metrics and Impact Factor bashing is old and somewhat
tiresome:  Those who are in power (like prestigious journal
editors) blame the "system" and not themselves for their own
behavior. Non-profit publishers could make a difference, but are
too afraid not to play the game.  Rating systems should be owned
by public (government) and not private (commercial) interests.

What is missing from all of the rants is why citation metrics and
associated journal prestige are so appealing to readers, authors,
editors, publishers, academic review boards, and granting
agencies, and why -- in spite of their known limitations -- do we
still use them. Blaming the system (or the 'Man') is not a good
enough explanation.

Quite briefly, citation metrics provide a simple and intuitive
*heuristic* to understanding the dissemination of one's ideas,
the significance of one's work, and the attention an article
brings from a community of qualified peers.  Citation counts are
heuristic because they do not provide the whole picture or any of
the nuances and narratives that surround each publication or
journal.  While we fear that others do not understand the
limitations of citation metrics, I have not met one librarian,
author, editor, reviewer, publisher, or granting officer who
claims they make decisions solely based on these metrics.  The
masses are not as naive as we perceive them to be.

Are academic journals a 'threat to scholarly communication' and
the 'advancement of science'?  Perhaps we could imagine what
science would be without them?  Or what science would be like if
we replaced citation metrics and journal prestige with article
downloads, and social networking services like 'Twitter' or
'Digg'

Frankly, journals more to benefit scholarly communication and the
advancement of science than harm it.  You can tell that to the
Man.

--Phil Davis


Colin Steele wrote:

> A long article from Zoe Corbyn, in the British Times Higher
> Education Supplement for August 13th with the above title has
> some extremely cogent comments regarding the present situation in
> academic publishing and the impact of the increasing trends to
> measure research both individually and institutionally through
> bibliometric and other numeric processes.
>
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=3D26&storycod=
e=3D407705&c=3D1