Re: science_publishers

["George Janelidze" <janelg@telkomsa.net>]

[Note from moderator: TAC will indeed be covered by ISI someday, a 
decision revealed in 2010. There was also correspondence from ISI this 
April. Patience may be needed.

While I'm writing, it should be pointed out that the discussion, while 
interesting to the moderator too, is off topic, and needs to end. Thanks.]

Dear Ronnie,

You say:

"...since some countries will consider a journal as worth rating for
research assessment if and only if it is listed by ISI..."

"...I got a nice letter back, and a new letter from Mr Rodney Chonka, which
has led to the listing of TAC."

But what do you mean by "listed by ISI"? I asked about this someone who
decides about (one of aspects of) research assessment at my university. The
answer I got was:

"...I cannot find this journal in the Science Citation Index on the ISI Web
of Knowledge platform accessed from the library website, nor in the PDF list
of ISI journals on the library website. I suspect that you located it on the
Thompson-Reuters so-called "Master list", which I think lists all journals
whether ISI rated or not - i.e. the ISI list is a subset of the "Master
list". So I think that your journal is not an ISI-rated journal..."

I also discussed this with Bob Rosebrugh, and it seems to us that TAC is
"somewhere in ISI", but NOT on the right list, which those countries you
mentioned would use.

A recent message of Michael Barr says (among other things): "...It took TAC
15 years to get ISI to agree to index it...". But again, unfortunately it is
not the list we need.

Dear All,

I wrote about this some time ago, and in particular Jim Stasheff agreed and
tried to help, but let me repeat/add: I think we - meaning hundreds of
people seriously interested in category theory - should try to:

- Persuade Mathematical Reviews to use "Cahiers" and APCS for the citations
(for TAC it is fortunately done, but only this year).

- Persuade Thomsons Reuters to include "Cahiers" and TAC in their RIGHT list
(for APCS it is fortunately done a long time ago).

Please do not conclude that my opinion about Mathematical Reviews and/or
Thomsons Reuters is "good", "bad", or any different from yours.

Regards - George




[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]