[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: How many (peer reveiwed) journals are there?
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: How many (peer reveiwed) journals are there?
- From: "David Prosser" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:11:47 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Joe was careful to make clear that his question was not to do with the business model of journals, so it is unfortunate that Phil could not resist the dig at OA publishers. Having looked at the first 20 titles listed by BMC I can't see one that hasn't published papers this year. Some have only published a few papers, some have published many. Maybe I've just missed the 'scores' of titles that publish no papers, but frankly I'm not going to check them all. I'll just wait for Phil to produce some evidence to back-up his claim. David -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Phil Davis Sent: 05 November 2008 22:25 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: How many (peer reveiwed) journals are there? I'm sorry to be coy, but I don't understand how this question is meaningful. Journals are defined (mostly) by the community they serve. While we like to think of journals as collections of articles, "article" also requires some definition. And while we consider peer-review to be a universal standard of rigor, it is based on *whose* peers you are talking about. A journal can still be a journal even though it publishes so infrequently, one would question whether calling it a journal is even appropriate. Look at scores of BioMedCentral or Bentham Science journals that seem to maintain their presence in spite of attracting no articles. To the question of "what is a journal anyway?" we should add "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" and ponder this for some time. --Phil Davis Joseph J. Esposito wrote: > In a conversation with a client recently, I made the offhand > remark about "the 24,000 peer-reviewed journals." She said, Not > so fast! That number is suspect; the actual number is both > bigger and smaller. The number is smaller, in her view, because > only a subset of journals have a careful peer review process; and > it is larger in that the number of journals continues to grow, > but the review process is often sketchy at best. (As far as I > know, none of this has anything to do with whether a journal is > open access or toll access.) > > Clearly there are matters of definition at issue here: What must > peer review consist of in order for it to earn the use of the > name? And while we are at it, what is a journal anyway? > > I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has some thoughts on > this topic. > > How many journals are there? > > Joe Esposito