From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4736 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 20:58:00 -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: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241020139 14616 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:48:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:48:59 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Sat Dec 6 08:20:40 2008 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:20:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1L8w4J-0007X4-37 for categories-list@mta.ca; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:15:31 -0400 Original-Sender: categories@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 42 Original-Lines: 77 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4736 Archived-At: Pedro, It's just so easy for a bureaucrat to be able to back up an arbitrary decison by pointing to an `impact factor' jim Resende wrote: > As an example of how some governments may indeed be tempted to use ISI > information for tenure and promotion decision, Iet me mention what > happened in Portugal some years ago. There was a short-lived social- > democrat government in Portugal whose science minister (a professor > from IST's mechanical engineering department) proposed to base the > evaluation of scientific production on a simple formula. The formula > originally included niceties such as requiring every scientist, > whatever his field, to publish an average of four papers per year --- > ranging from social sciences to chemistry (!!!) More, these papers > were supposed to be published in ISI cited papers. > > A series of fierce complaints from the portuguese scientific community > followed, in an attempt at least to fix the formula by providing > realistic expectations regarding average numbers of publications > according to field. The requirement that publications be ISI-indexed > was probably going to be retained, though, except that the government > was short-lived and the whole evaluation system was swiftly (and > fortunately) replaced by a more effective peer review system. > > About that time I learned from Ronnie Brown that he had had some > correspondence with Eugene Garfield (the founder of ISI) and in > particular had mentioned to him how SCI seemed to be used in some > countries in order to assess scientific production. Garfield's reply > was crisp and clear: "The SCI was not designed for that > purpose" (these may not have been the exact words, but it was the > spirit as far as I remember). > > Why some governments will insist on (mis)using such a commercial tool > is not completely clear. My guess is that in some cases this is a > consequence of lack of understanding of how science works, on the part > some political decision makers. Certainly the need to cut on expenses > must play a role, too. > > Best, > Pedro. > > > On Dec 3, 2008, at 5:23 PM, John Baez wrote: > >> Dear category theorists - >> >> Thomson Scientific runs the well-known "Science Citation Index", which >> "provides researchers, administrators, faculty, and students with >> quick, >> powerful access to the bibliographic and citation information they >> need to >> find relevant, comprehensive research data". I believe data from >> this index >> is used in tenure and promotion decisions at some universities. >> >> I just heard that "Theory and Applications of Categories" and >> "Cahiers" are >> not listed on the Science Citation Index, while - for example - >> Elsevier's >> journal "Homeopathy" is listed there. >> >> Is this true? Is there some way to improve the situation? >> >> Best, >> jb >> >> > > >