Re: CCL:QC journals 'in trouble'

 Dear Patrick and all,
 let's be brief since this is not a mainstream CCL topic. Patrick's
 original mail on impact factors shows the fundamental illness of
 bibliometric research for all its claims of objectivity.
 The fact is that the impact factors are skewed in favor of secondary
 sources which aggregate the results of a number of original papers. That
 is why even JACS and other major, highly respected and highly quoted
 journals don't make it to the top, whereas all forms of reviews do. This
 is not meant to disparage reviews! - just to add perspective, recognizing
 that some of the very major journals are also in the top.
 Specialized knowledge gets lost in this turmoil. Whether it be theoretical
 chemistry or tannery, specialized journals just don't cut it for
 bibliometers. Yet bibliometry is most surely here to stay and, as Patrick
 makes it clear, is a well established church with dogmas and rituals which
 will not move.
 So my way of thinking is along Jaime Martell's last line: tune policy,
 personalize assessments of researchers (we ARE persons!).
 Alx
  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty,
      Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
      (Director, Computing Academic Services)
      Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
      Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico City DF MEXICO
 Tel. (+52-5) 622-8541, 622-8542; Fax 622-8540
  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .