|
|
Post by Guest333 on Jul 18, 2013 0:01:39 GMT -5
Where does one find information about ranking / impact scores for journals? Is there a central database with this information?
|
|
|
|
Post by web of science on Jul 18, 2013 0:59:40 GMT -5
wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by don't be a dick on Jul 18, 2013 9:04:08 GMT -5
no need for that
|
|
|
|
Post by here you go on Jul 18, 2013 9:26:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by samoth on Jul 18, 2013 12:24:41 GMT -5
Where does one find information about ranking / impact scores for journals? Is there a central database with this information? See if your library's website has a subscription to the "journal citation reports" website on ISI--it's easy to use and has just been updated with the 2012 data. |
|
|
|
Post by Actually on Jul 18, 2013 12:27:02 GMT -5
Guest333, what these jerks (besides DBAD) aren't telling you is that the google search they lmgtfy'd you doesn't actually bring you to the most helpful resource. That would be the Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports. To see journal impact factors:
1) go to Web of Knowledge,
2) click on 'Additional Resources,'
3) click on Journal Citation Reports,
4) click on JCR social sciences
5) hit submit,
6) select sociology and sort by impact factor.
I recommend comparing the impact factor rankings to the Eigenfactor scores, which is a measure of the journal's centrality in the network of citations. In addition to going straight to the source, this allows you to easily compile journal data besides impact factors, easily collect information on related disciplines (demography, criminology, public health, etc.), and is the place where it's easiest to conduct lit reviews to boot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest333 on Jul 18, 2013 14:18:28 GMT -5
"Actually," thank you very much for your very helpful response, and to the others who chimed in also. I am new to the world of academia as a graduate student and am just getting my feet wet with this information as I hope/plan to publish in the future.
As an unfortunate side-note, I am always surprised when people forget (e.g., in the form of a rude comment like "wow"), that they, too, once didn't know this information and had to learn it from someone else. I would hope that a discussion forum is always a place where such questions can be safely asked, and that the answers benefit many (in addition to the OP).
|
|
|
|
Post by FWIW on Jul 18, 2013 14:32:27 GMT -5
Guest333,
Ignore the haters- real sociologists have better things to do post rude comments online. Just a thought as you begin to consider publication venues. Impact factors are not the end all be all, and are weakly correlated with the prestigiousness of journals in the eyes of the American sociological community. I would have to re-check the list but several in the top 10/20 are not automatically thought of as leading generalist journals. Also several that don't rank particularly high have a great deal of street cred so to speak.
PS I remember there being a study (authors names escape me) where professors were ask to make their own top 10 lists of journals and there was a fairly significant discrepancy between impact factors and perceptions of prestige (this held across all disciplines).
|
|
|
|
Post by well... on Jul 18, 2013 15:20:43 GMT -5
"Actually," thank you very much for your very helpful response, and to the others who chimed in also. I am new to the world of academia as a graduate student and am just getting my feet wet with this information as I hope/plan to publish in the future. As an unfortunate side-note, I am always surprised when people forget (e.g., in the form of a rude comment like "wow"), that they, too, once didn't know this information and had to learn it from someone else. I would hope that a discussion forum is always a place where such questions can be safely asked, and that the answers benefit many (in addition to the OP). I think this is true. I also think that trying to get some information on your own, first, is helpful. For instance if you googled it and asked something like is this the best resource? Something like that. But for me, it seems as though you didn't do any preliminary work. I get it you're a grad student. So am I, but seeing if I can find answers myself and then getting feedback always works better for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest333 on Jul 18, 2013 21:25:27 GMT -5
"FWIW," that's interesting and helpful, thank you. I'm wondering now, though, how colleges/universities tend to "count" publications when it comes to tenure--do impact scores make a difference in that process? Tenure requirements and whether impact scores weight heavily probably depend on the specific institution, though, I'm guessing.
"Well...," you assume I didn't seek out the information before this post, but I did some online searches that didn't produce really useful results. I didn't realize I needed to explain a failed process. In my experience, oftentimes when someone is totally new to something, it makes more sense to hear it from someone more seasoned who can pare things down with a direct answer. That's what I love about mentoring relationships, online forums, and teaching. I personally find interactive discussions useful when learning something new, also, which you don't get from solitary info-seeking online or elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Well... on Jul 18, 2013 21:39:27 GMT -5
"FWIW," that's interesting and helpful, thank you. I'm wondering now, though, how colleges/universities tend to "count" publications when it comes to tenure--do impact scores make a difference in that process? Tenure requirements and whether impact scores weight heavily probably depend on the specific institution, though, I'm guessing. "Well...," you assume I didn't seek out the information before this post, but I did some online searches that didn't produce really useful results. I didn't realize I needed to explain a failed process. In my experience, oftentimes when someone is totally new to something, it makes more sense to hear it from someone more seasoned who can pare things down with a direct answer. That's what I love about mentoring relationships, online forums, and teaching. I personally find interactive discussions useful when learning something new, also, which you don't get from solitary info-seeking online or elsewhere. I assumed because of the lack of detail. Giving more information can help you get better responses and a more engaged dialogue (though I recognize that's not always the case). Look, I'm not trying to be mean or an asshole but to provide another perspective from reading what you wrote. Your follow up responses give that more detail. The commenter who wrote 'wow' may not have written that if you gave more context. FWIW I'm not that commentor and I'm not saying that wasn't an abrupt response. What I am saying is that context helps facilitate dialogue |
|
|
|
Post by Guest333 on Jul 18, 2013 21:50:03 GMT -5
"Well...," I'm not offended. I think we're both just describing how different perceptions might arise when participating in a thread, and how those perceptions can affect responses. It's a good thing to think about, so thanks for the dialogue.  |
|
|
|
Post by Well.. on Jul 19, 2013 7:33:20 GMT -5
"Well...," I'm not offended. I think we're both just describing how different perceptions might arise when participating in a thread, and how those perceptions can affect responses. It's a good thing to think about, so thanks for the dialogue. |
|
|
|
Post by anonprof on Jul 22, 2013 12:06:35 GMT -5
I'm wondering now, though, how colleges/universities tend to "count" publications when it comes to tenure--do impact scores make a difference in that process? Tenure requirements and whether impact scores weight heavily probably depend on the specific institution, though, I'm guessing. The answer is: It depends. I'm at an R2 and in my department they mostly judge your tenure case based on quantity over quality. But quality can help if you are on the borderline. For instance someone with 5 journal articles (since coming here) when they go up for tenure, with 3 at great journals, would probably have an equally strong case as someone with 6 journal articles (since coming here) in mediocre journals. I've heard of a recent case where someone had 5 publications all in mediocre journals and they "almost didn't get tenure" but ultimately did with a mixed vote. (Our department standard is 5-6 peer reviewed papers minimum, published while you were at this university, by the time you come up for tenure. Books count as 3 peer reviewed papers). At the R1 I went to grad school at, it's a similar deal- after my defense I had a long conversation with my chair about tenure requirements, and we discussed the 3 professors who were going up for tenure the next year at that department. He noted that one prof going up for tenure had the most articles but most at second tier journals (Probably around 15 IIRC?) One had 11 articles with maybe 8 of them at top 15 journals with high impact scores, and one had around 7 articles at second tier journals. He correctly predicted that the first two professors would get tenure and the third would not. At some non -research based institutions I interviewed at, when I asked about publishing requirements for tenure I was told things like "Well you want to have at least 1 or 2 publications, but things like "teaching sociology" articles and book chapters definitely count." That being said, I assume at R1s they actually ask you officially to note the impact scores in your tenure package. At my school they don't ask for those scores officially, but in the "narratives" for my third year review (which is basically like a mini-tenure review) and my annual reviews, I made sure to point out which of my publications had been in leading journals. And when I had a publication in a leading journal it was definitely mentioned in the part of my annual review that the reviewers write as being of special note or something like that. |
|
