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

[Stephen J Bensman]

What's not to laugh about it?  There probably is no better way to do it.

SB




Loet Leydesdorff <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> on 03/08/2006
02:46:15 PM

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


Great! Thanks a lot.
I am happy to hear that you can laugh about it. :-)

Best,  Loet

> -----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 9:17 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
>
> Loet,
> I just finished a tutorial by Thomson Scientific on use of
> the online JCR.
> During the course of this tutorial, I found out how ISI
> assigns journals to its subject categories.  It is so
> delicious that I cannot resist telling you what I learned.
>
> They have for each subject category a little blurb describing
> what that category is and what it covers.  It is part of the
> category information.
> An ISI person takes a journal, looks at 2 or 3 issues, and
> then SUBJECTIVELY--I REPEAT, SUBJECTIVELY--assigns the
> journal to a subject category on the basis of those category
> descriptions.  It is so traditional, librarian, and Keynesian
> that your name immediately popped into my mind together with
> a howl of laughter.
>
> In terms on how these things have been done for centuries, it
> is definitely legitmized.
>
> 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
>