Dear Janet,

While I appreciate your point, I’m not summarizing or describing the
article. Anyone who reads the article will read the limits and methods
section. 

My posts to the list occur when people post the 2008 study. I post the
2012 study because it is a better study and a more useful source. Prior
to the recent spate of references to the 2008 study, I posted only a
preprint announcement and a publication announcement. When people post
the earlier study, I want to remind them that a better study exists.
With respect to your suggestion, I note that no one has ever placed the
2008 list in context by describing the methods or purpose of the study.

Yesterday, I listed the article and three books to answer a question on
writing for journals accompanied by the 2008 list. If the question had
been “how do I write a journal article?” I would only have listed
the three books.

There are serious reasons to prefer that people use the 2012 study.

The 2008 study is obsolete. We collected data swiftly under severe time
pressure in response to a government research proposal that neglected
design journals. We circulated a query as widely as possible to
demonstrate global perspectives. Using this method to gather data from
as large a population as possible on short notice entailed accepting a
self-selected response from people choosing to answer the wide query.
Because we sent a broad query, the 2008 study covered responses
including peer-reviewed journals, magazines, and trade journals. 

The 2012 study focuses on peer-reviewed journals. Respondents are not
self-selected but drawn from an expert pool. The expert pool is a
comprehensive list of journal editors and editorial board members. The
methods section details the response. 

There has been some confusion on the issue of self-selection.
Self-selection involves response by anyone who chooses to answer an
openly circulated query. When researchers use criteria to select the
respondent group, those who answer are not self-selected. The number of
respondents determines the response rate. Using expert criteria for
respondents gives a better and more useful response. One might select
other criteria than we chose, but we felt that a pool of journal editors
and editorial board members would comprise a valid expert group for a
study on peer-reviewed journals. These editors and boards comprise many
of the expert researchers, distinguished scholars, and leading
professors in our field. This is the context of the study. 

We covered a core group of journals from several but not all design
disciplines. I would be delighted to see others replicate the study to
coverage more design fields. We’ll be happy to share methods
information to make this possible. I’d also be delighted to see people
conduct different methodologically responsible studies to add to the
information, either using a wider set of journals or examining the
journals we studied from a different perspective.

If people post the 2008 study again, I will once again point out that
it is obsolete while referring to our 2012 study. The 2012 study is the
only such study in our field. When other studies are available, I’ll
refer to them as well.

Best regards,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design


Janet McDonnell wrote:

--snip--

I would be grateful if, when you draw this paper to the list's
attention, which you do regularly, you indicate in the two paragraphs of
description that the esteem list in the paper is first based on a
popularity/familiarity list in a specific collection of design
disciplines. It is made quite clear in the paper precisely what the
methods used to arrive at the tables are - but taken out of the context
in which the tables were arrived at - as references to the contents of
the paper seem increasingly to be, may mislead those who have lost, or
never formed, the habit of establishing the context for research
findings.

--snip--