Subject: Re: CCL:QC journals 'in trouble'

From: "Jaime Martell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:28:23 -500

> 
> The trouble is mainly with journals like 'ours' e.g. J. Mol. Struct.
> (THEOCHEM). A lot of the quantum chemistry specific journals do not
> have high impact factors. If you consider the way these are
> calculated, that's not suprising, and does not indicate low quality
> of the journals. 

Except maybe for THEOCHEM.  I've given up on them, but last time I 
checked there were an awful lot of low quality papers there.

> now that were are in the branch 'Chemistry, physical'. To get in the
> top ten (percent even), we need to 'beat' things like 'Advances in
> Physical chemistry', and a lot of review journals. That is
> practically impossible, even very well-known journals like J. Am.
> Chem. Soc. have trouble 'beating' things like 'Chemical Reviews'.

I have a hard time believing that a publication in JACS will not 
score you enough points.  Regarding physical chemistry journals, why 
not publish in J. Phys. Chem.?  In the ACS series, it is second in 
reputation only to JACS, and surely must have a high impact factor.  
Between J. Phys. Chem. and J. Chem. Phys. you will find most of the 
highest quality theoretical chemistry papers.
> 
> Another option might be that Ghent University does no longer pursue
> this. But we are leading in bibliometrics, and a LOT of things that
> started in Ghent have come spread all over the world. So, it seems
> to me, we might better not be taking chances.

Or fine tune the policy to be more realistic.

Good luck.
Jaime Martell, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor and Camille & Henry Dreyfus Fellow
Department of Chemistry
University of North Carolina at Asheville
Asheville, NC 28805-8511
Phone: (828) 232-5170
Fax:   (828) 232-5179
E-mail: <[email-masked]>
WWW:  <http://www.unca.edu/~jmartell>
"Ignorance is its own punishment"

---

From: Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:27:44 -0600 (CST)

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
 .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .