From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4721 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "R Brown" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Science Citation Index Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:09:06 -0000 Message-ID: Reply-To: "R Brown" NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020128 14547 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:48:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:48:48 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Fri Dec 5 09:41:12 2008 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:41:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1L8ar3-0003yE-22 for categories-list@mta.ca; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:36:25 -0400 Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 25 Original-Lines: 106 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4721 Archived-At: Dear All,=20 I did some investigation on this in 2003, but never got round to writing = an article for the Notices AMS as was proposed.=20 I wrote to journals on the EMS list and asked their opinion of ISI. Some = of the opinions were quite scathing. As Michael notes, dealing with ISI = is like hitting a blank wall.=20 What ISI are trying to do is a little like Readers Digest: as ISI claim, = they give the `Essential Science'. In practice, it seems they quickly = put on their list journals from publishers (Homeopathy; Chaos, Solitons, = Fractals;. ...) but put up all sorts of barriers to new independent = journals. What does this show about the real aims of ISI?=20 They claim to have an assessment procedure for new journals, but what = this procedure is remains undisclosed.=20 More discussion is given by Richard Poynder:=20 I wrote about this topic recently = (http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-access-question-of-quality_21.h= tml).=20 This might also interest you, as it suggests there is a growing = perception of the need to move beyond the impact factor: http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/11/why_does_impact_factor_persist.php It is not in ISI interests to take on more journals (more work, what = reward?). It may be that they are using old technology (pre-Google?).=20 I looked on the Thomsons/ISI board once and found no academic = representation. It is not clear that they have the expertise to do the = job they claim to do. Unfortunately, many countreis accept their claims, = and it is administratively convenient so to do.=20 A report by Charles Goldie for the LMS writes: " The last few paragraphs suggest one general point, not specific to = mathematics, that I hope the CMS response can take up, which is that the = citation studies planned by HEFCE to be its main indicators depend on = data from a private overseas corporation with no responsi=ADbility to = the UK whatsoever. The way the data are organised by the Thomson = Corporation (choice of fields, selection of journals for inclusion, = allocation to fields) has considerable prior consequences for what it is = feasible to do with the data, and hence for what indicators HEFCE or = their agents might wish to employ. For the research future of this = country to be determined to a large extent in this way is absolutely = craven, and seems to me simply shame=ADful."=20 Thus there is considerable doubt that ISI are doing what could be called = a professional academic job, though it might be called `professional' if = the aim is simply to make money from data organised in a way whose = toxic potentiality is not easily open to view.=20 Charles wrote to me: "As you'll see, part of what I found was that Thomson Scientific's classification of journals into fields has no coherence or logic. Algebra Colloquium is classed as Applied Mathematics!" The other point is that `great oaks from little acorns grow'. A new but = vital area may have little `impact factor'. ISI procedures, and their = acceptance for research evaluation, are unfavourable to new = initiatives, and trends.=20 Unfortunately, the discussion of how mathematics progresses, and how new = ideas grow, the context, is not usually part of the study of mathematics = for students, and my impression is there is little developed language to = cope with this. (Music degrees allow for study of performance, = musicology, composition, ..Can we learn from this?) See discussion in = various articles on www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/publar.html particularly perhaps `The methodology of mathematics'. Comments and = argument welcome! But I have found the views of `top people' (in the UK, = FRS's) can be very naive, the `Groupoids is rubbish' school of thought, = or `the van Kampen programme is a ridiculous programme', etc., etc.=20 If anyone would like more information to pursue this ISI matter, I am = happy to help. My problem is that I have some writing priorities and am = a bit too old to divert my attention too much.=20 But obviously it is bad news for the progress of mathematics if the EC = is taken in by what ISI themselves say they do, rather than by an = analysis of what they actually do. Please forward this to the EC if it = might help! Ronnie