There is no substitute for letters of reference that
describe the contribution of the work and its impact on thinking and work in
the field. Citation numbers are very rough indicators, and in general what
you might notice are very high and very low numbers. In-between is unlikely to
be helpful. That means that those of who write letters must present good
cases about contribution and impact. Impact and citation numbers are gamed all
the time, but if they are not in accord with the letters it’s likely they will
be ignored.
Put differently, only those close to the top, but surely not
there, will brag about the numbers. The work itself should speak to the field.
As for "luxury" (high impact, very high prestige) journals, such as Science, our fields are not endowed with such
journals. (Full disclosure, I have published in Science.) All the problems were legion well before the luxury notion was bruited about. It’s
not the luxury journals that make people into crooks. And it is not those deans
and departments that do not carefully read the work and the letters—there’s a
well-known phrase, “deans can count but they can’t read” (and there is
empirical work testing this). I am sure that no one reading this is subject to
this accusation, but…
I doubt that dishonesty/paper is much greater than in the
past. If you want a nightmare, put the dissertations granted by your department
through Turnitin. I did that for a random sample (not from my
department), and ¾ of the Similarity Scores were over 5%, and they ranged
into 16-18%. (I eliminated stuff in quotation marks, stuff from the
students’ papers, phrases less than 10 words, and the bibliography.)
I think open journals idea are fine, if the refereeing is
good. If there are so many wonderful pieces of work, they surely should be
well-published. I observe that all journals have some clunkers, and all have
rejected Nobel-prize work.
People ought to try to make their work scrupulously strong,
never send journals work that has not been reviewed by colleagues, and realize
how difficult it is to do such work. My experience in reviewing has been
somewhat disappointing (perhaps they choose to have me review the worst
papers?). We have to up our game.
No comments:
Post a Comment