Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez, and Herbert Van de Sompel "Journal Status" arXiv:cs.GL/0601030 v1 9 Jan 2006

[Loet Leydesdorff]

I would happily leave it to you if it were only "chemistry."

Best,  Loet

________________________________
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681;
loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephen J Bensman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:19 PM
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez,
> and Herbert Van de Sompel "Journal Status"
> arXiv:cs.GL/0601030 v1 9 Jan 2006
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> I really do not understand what you mean by "methodological
> legitimation"
> and why these categories need to be legitimized.  I look at
> the titles in the categories, and the words of the titles are
> enough to legitimize them.
> I only suspect problems when I am plagued by outliers and
> interaction effects.
>
> When I first started to analyze "chemistry" journals, I once
> told a colleague that the entire thing would be simple, if I
> could only figure out what a "chemistry" journal was, and he
> laughed at me.  Now he no longer laughs at me when I use
> terms such as "chemistryness" to indicate that the journals
> are only an outward manifestation in the material world of
> the Platonic Idea of "chemistry."
>
> Every time I drive my car or use a computer I use something
> that I don't understand.  I still think that my computer
> consists of little mice running on treadmills.  I use a lot
> of statistics, whose mathematical bases are entirely beyond
> me.  It is just enough for me that these things work.  The
> economic term, I think, is "specialization."
>
> SB
>
>
>
>
> Loet Leydesdorff <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>@listserv.utk.edu> on
> 03/08/2006
> 12:47:01 AM
>
> Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
>        <SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu>
>
> Sent by:    ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
>        <SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu>
>
>
> To:    SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
> cc:     (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU)
>
> Subject:    Re: [SIGMETRICS] Johan Bollen, Marko A.
> Rodriguez, and Herbert
>        Van de Sompel "Journal Status" arXiv:cs.GL/0601030 v1
> 9 Jan 2006
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> > PS  I use ISI subject categories and have found them very
> good.  But
> > then I am used to using bad classification systems like LC and the
> > DDC.
>
> I am happy for you! However, this was not my question. I was
> just wondering about the methodological legitimation of these
> categories. Can one use something which one does not
> understand -- and nobody seems to understand them -- as a
> basis for research and evaluation decisions? One knows that
> outcomes of, for example, bibliometric assessments are
> heavily dependent on this type of delineations.
>
> Perhaps, I am the more old-fashioned one of the two of us. :-)
>
> Best,  Loet
>