From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4732 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jim stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: Science Citation Index Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:46:47 -0500 Message-ID: Reply-To: jim stasheff NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020136 14589 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:48:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:48:56 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Fri Dec 5 20:18:53 2008 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:18:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1L8kms-0002k9-Qw for categories-list@mta.ca; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:12:46 -0400 Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 37 Original-Lines: 120 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4732 Archived-At: Ronnie, The AMS staff shoudl be doing this. May I forward your msg to them or just suggest they get on the ball? jim Brown wrote: > Dear All,=20 > > I did some investigation on this in 2003, but never got round to writin= g an article for the Notices AMS as was proposed.=20 > > I wrote to journals on the EMS list and asked their opinion of ISI. Som= e 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 p= ut on their list journals from publishers (Homeopathy; Chaos, Solitons, F= ractals;. ...) but put up all sorts of barriers to new independent journa= ls. What does this show about the real aims of ISI?=20 > > They claim to have an assessment procedure for new journals, but what t= his 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.html).=20 > > This might also interest you, as it suggests there is a growing percept= ion of the need to move beyond the impact factor: > > > http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/11/why_does_impact_factor_persist.ph= p > > It is not in ISI interests to take on more journals (more work, what re= ward?). It may be that they are using old technology (pre-Google?).=20 > > I looked on the Thomsons/ISI board once and found no academic represent= ation. It is not clear that they have the expertise to do the job they cl= aim to do. Unfortunately, many countreis accept their claims, and it is a= dministratively 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 ma= thematics, that I hope the CMS response can take up, which is that the ci= tation studies planned by HEFCE to be its main indicators depend on data = from a private overseas corporation with no responsi=ADbility to the UK w= hatsoever. The way the data are organised by the Thomson Corporation (cho= ice of fields, selection of journals for inclusion, allocation to fields)= has considerable prior consequences for what it is feasible to do with t= he data, and hence for what indicators HEFCE or their agents might wish t= o employ. For the research future of this country to be determined to a l= arge extent in this way is absolutely craven, and seems to me simply sham= e=ADful."=20 > > Thus there is considerable doubt that ISI are doing what could be calle= d a professional academic job, though it might be called `professional' i= f the aim is simply to make money from data organised in a way whose tox= ic 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 ac= ceptance for research evaluation, are unfavourable to new initiatives, a= nd trends.=20 > > Unfortunately, the discussion of how mathematics progresses, and how ne= w ideas grow, the context, is not usually part of the study of mathematic= s for students, and my impression is there is little developed language t= o cope with this. (Music degrees allow for study of performance, musicolo= gy, composition, ..Can we learn from this?) See discussion in various art= icles on > www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/publar.html > particularly perhaps `The methodology of mathematics'. Comments and arg= ument 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 h= appy 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 analysi= s of what they actually do. Please forward this to the EC if it might hel= p! > > Ronnie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =20