CZ Talk:Cold Storage/List of academic journals: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter J. King ({{unsigned}} and comment) |
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards (rationale for this list needed) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:It seems a fairly pointless list, to be honest; aside from the fact that it can't be complete, the choice of the "most influential" journals is likely to be subjective, and at least extremely difficult. Moreover, even if selective, the list is likely to be vast, and difficult to maintain. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 10:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | :It seems a fairly pointless list, to be honest; aside from the fact that it can't be complete, the choice of the "most influential" journals is likely to be subjective, and at least extremely difficult. Moreover, even if selective, the list is likely to be vast, and difficult to maintain. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 10:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::I have real problems with this list. At least in my own areas of expertise, it is dominated by American journals [including some quite mediocre ones], massively under-represents European English language journals, and completely ignores major journals in other languages. Can somebody tell me what is the point of this list? At least, it could be a definitive list of peer-reviewed journals of note published in English...but the instruction originally was that each discipline should have about 10. I see that that idea has now been completely abandoned, but the original rationale of identifying the "most influential" journals, remains? Or not? We need a real discussion on this, and in my view the abandonment of it in its current form. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:31, 14 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 09:31, 14 April 2007
do not delete this list ...said DavidGoodman (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2007 (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)
- It seems a fairly pointless list, to be honest; aside from the fact that it can't be complete, the choice of the "most influential" journals is likely to be subjective, and at least extremely difficult. Moreover, even if selective, the list is likely to be vast, and difficult to maintain. --Peter J. King Talk 10:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
- I have real problems with this list. At least in my own areas of expertise, it is dominated by American journals [including some quite mediocre ones], massively under-represents European English language journals, and completely ignores major journals in other languages. Can somebody tell me what is the point of this list? At least, it could be a definitive list of peer-reviewed journals of note published in English...but the instruction originally was that each discipline should have about 10. I see that that idea has now been completely abandoned, but the original rationale of identifying the "most influential" journals, remains? Or not? We need a real discussion on this, and in my view the abandonment of it in its current form. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:31, 14 April 2007 (CDT)