New CACM article on "publications ranking"

[Stephen J Bensman]

I read the abstract, and, personally, I thought that he stole it word-for-word from the introduction to Hughes' 1924 assessment of US research-doctorate programs.  Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose.
 
SB

________________________________

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Sat 5/26/2007 8:40 AM
To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] New CACM article on "publications ranking"


I believe the paper that Cristina mentions goes beyond ranking institutions and also deals with identifying "the best...individuals in a given discipline".

Here's the abstract:
 
"Assessing both academic and industrial research institutions, along with their scholars, can help identify the best organizations and individuals in a given discipline. Assessment can reveal outstanding institutions and scholars, allowing students and researchers to better decide where they want to study or work and allowing employers to recruit the most qualified potential employees. These assessments can also assist both internal and external administrators in making influential decisions; for example, funding, promotion, and compensation."
 
Bernie Sloan

Stephen J Bensman <notsjb at LSU.EDU> wrote:

	Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
	Everybody has a better mouse trap.  In respect to US academic rankings, the only ones that count are the ones done by the US National Research Council, the American Council on Education, etc., and these are done every 10-15 years or so.  There is one being conducted now.  Not to worry though.  At top the rankings have remained the same for about a century, and despite all the new sophisticated techniques with publications, citations, etc. they arrive at basically the same the results that were obtained by Cattell in 1910 and Hughes in 1924 with crude opinion surveys.  There are new fields and all that, but the universities dominant in the new fields are the ones that were dominant in the old fields.  Your institution is one of these, and it is an outlier, because most dominant universities have programs with large numbers of faculty, but Hopkins makes it to the top on a small faculty base.  You should study the historical reasons for this.  It is a very interesting case.
	 
	SB

________________________________

	From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics on behalf of Pikas, Christina K.
	Sent: Fri 5/25/2007 1:07 PM
	To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
	Subject: [SIGMETRICS] New CACM article on "publications ranking"
	
	
	Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
	Sigh.  It just seems so superficial and so not useful... basically based on production.  The lead author is from Google -- makes you wonder if this is a new product?
	Ren, J. and Taylor, R. N. 2007. Automatic and versatile publications ranking for research institutions and scholars. Commun. ACM 50, 6 (Jun. 2007), 81-85. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1247001.1247010
	Christina K. Pikas, MLS
	R.E. Gibson Library & Information Center
	The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
	Voice  240.228.4812 (Washington), 443.778.4812 (Baltimore)
	Fax 443.778.5353 


________________________________

Building a website is a piece of cake. 
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48251/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/?p=PASSPORTPLUS> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20070526/8fd688d0/attachment.html>