RE: Linking publication with career

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Not so fast, Joe. 

Considering an article as being good because published in a particular
journal, merely means being published in a journal where other good
articles are published.  Which journals it is that are best changes from
decade to decade. JACS or Physical review were not the most prestigious
journals in their fields in 1930, and the journals that were the most
important then have long ago merged or changed.  The nature of the
publisher doesnt matter either, nor how it is published, sold, or
distributed. It's the mutually supporting effect of the good authors who
send their papers there.

It would work just as well if the "journals" were lists of particularly
meritorious postings in a field. There are many examples: the Nobel
prizes, the Pulitzer prizes, etc.

Dr. David Goodman
dgoodman@liu.edu 

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Joseph J. Esposito
Sent:	Fri 8/20/2004 8:47 PM
To:	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Linking publication with career

>As long as scientific publication is bound with prestige, career and
>financial resources, scientific papers will remain discrete communication
>entities and the need for a ranking (beeing published in journal x or
>beeing the most highly downloaded pdf) will not disapeared.

JE:  Oh, I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.  And that--the
linkage between career and publication--is why the proprietary journals
will continue to be proprietary (that is, user pays).  Open Access will go
in another direction.

Joe Esposito