From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Sep 15 15:14:53 2005
From: "CCL" <owner-chemistry(-)server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: RE: W:Disclose your data, or not publish !
Message-Id: <-29198-050915150914-1509-V1O9Y1PfYFcjeju1tb3eSw(-)server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: Andrew Fant <fant(-)pobox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:08:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0


Sent to CCL by: Andrew Fant [fant(-)pobox.com]
CCL wrote:
> 
> Sent to CCL by: Valentin Ananikov [val__ioc.ac.ru]
> 
>> Sent to CCL by: "Chemical  Bond" [chemicalbond001|"|yahoo.com]
>> Everyday, tons of new publications come out. 
> 
> 
> Would it be possible to develop a numeric criterion to estimate the
> quality of publications?
> 
> Without clear criteria for estimating quality, clarity, impact and
> significance of the publications such discussions tend to be rather
> philosophical and useless.
> 
> I am really interesting if there was any research addressing this problem?
> 
> Best regards,
> Valentin.

Valentin,
   You might want to check into ISI's impact ratings.  They are based
(no surprise here) on their scientific citation index databases, and
attempt to judge which journals publish papers that tend to be cited
more and for a longer period of time after the initial publication.
They have both a generic set of "high impact" journals, and ratings in
specific fields.

Hope this helps,
		Andy