Dear Larry,

I totally agree with you about the impact factor.  There is a famous
saying in the bible 'to him that hath shall be given', and researchers
may think that it is a good idea to quote high-profile papers as
references in their research to demonstrate how mainstream they are,
thus reinforcing the measurement of impact.  Very often in my research
I have discovered that then most exciting articles have few or no
citations whatsoever.  Would a journal containing only articles with
zero citations produce more interesting science?

John Urquhart

On 6 February 2013 19:03, the.Duke.of.URL <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The impact factor. The biggest piece of bs in this entire exercise. The
> impact of a piece of research may not be felt for years, especially if it is
> ahead of its time. The Nobel committee knows this but not some university
> bureaucrats when it comes to promoting some poor person on the basis of this
> bs requirement.
>
> This is managerialism, the rationalization of bureaucracy, gone wild, though
> not as wild as in the US government. David Owen, a certified psychiatrist
> who as far as I know never really practiced, though that is beside the
> point, wrote a book not that many years ago called In Sickness and in Power.
> His argument was that a very large number of people in positions of great
> power were mentally ill. And these weren’t just politicians. It seems that
> sometimes it was the office they held that brought on the illness - for
> instance, it appeared to make Blair hubristic in the extreme, though not as
> badly as with Bush Jr and Cheney. Cheney used to be driven around Washington
> with a gas mask on the seat beside him in his car. Either this is a complex
> charade or there is/was something wrong with Cheney psychologically. This is
> not normal behavior. Any clinical psychologist will tell you this.
>
> Of course, it could be argued that we live in unnormal times. And indeed we
> do. If anyone thinks it is bad here, it is worse across the pond. If you
> think the Nixon administration was terrible, and it was, I would advise a
> closer look at the Obama administration. And I want to support him and
> believe that he will in the end do the right thing.
>
> Sorry. Didn't mean to go on. It is just that the impact factor, publish or
> perish, and some of the craziness of some of our politicians and business
> leaders all appear to be part of the mix of some authoritarian bureaucratic
> impetus pushing us further and further in a particular ideologically biased
> direction. I don't think it is too bad here yet, but I may not be the best
> person to make such a judgment.
>
> Larry
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "John Urquhart" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 06/02/2013 15:45:35
> Subject: Re: JSTOR
>>
>> No, not at all. Scientists have to 'publish or perish'. The advent
>> of such criteria as impact factor has only accentuated this trend.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> John Urquhart
>>
>> On 1 February 2013 15:46, Martin Rathfelder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  What sort of contract is involved. Are scientists paid by the journals?
>>>
>>>  On 01/02/13 12:22, John Urquhart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Aaron Swartz's death has drawn attention to a fundamental problem in
>>>>  society, namely the use of copyright to restrict the flow of
>>>>  information. The irony is that all those scientists who want their
>>>>  work to be disseminated as widely as possible have joined a system
>>>>  which forbids them to communicate their peer-reviewed articles
>>>>  electronically for free. Aaron Swartz was trying to break the
>>>>  societal division which allowed only members of academic institutions
>>>>  to have direct free access to the world's store of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>  The solution lies in scientists' negotiating the right to disseminate
>>>>  their peer reviewed articles, say, six months after being published in
>>>>  a journal. Paradoxically, this would actually increase subscriptions
>>>>  and the signal value of a particular journal that agreed to this
>>>>  request. Six months is a long enough period to take into account the
>>>>  insatiable curiosity of those looking for new knowledge, but short
>>>>  enough to enable considered research to reassess the original
>>>>  information by having access to original scientific articles. Without
>>>>  this kind of solution, 97% of the general population is excluded from
>>>>  meaningful scientific debate, and has to rely mainly on filtered press
>>>>  releases.
>>>>
>>>>  John Urquhart
>>>>
>>>>  On 21 January 2013 18:48, the.Duke.of.URL <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Dear John,
>>>>>
>>>>>  While I completely sympathize with your point of view, I don't think
>>>>> it
>>>>>  is
>>>>>  the case that Swartz 'hacked' into JSTOR. He just did something for
>>>>> which
>>>>>  neither MIT nor they were prepared. He appears to have had legitimate
>>>>>  access
>>>>>  to the archive. It is usually impractical for the average user of
>>>>> JSTOR
>>>>>  to
>>>>>  download about half a million documents. He obviously had no intention
>>>>> of
>>>>>  reading them all. Therefore, they could not have been for his own
>>>>>  personal
>>>>>  use. JSTOR appears to have been operating under such an assumption.
>>>>> And
>>>>>  were
>>>>>  caught out.
>>>>>
>>>>>  MIT's role in this is a lot more cloudy. They claim to be
>>>>> investigating
>>>>>  and
>>>>>  therefore can't really comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>  What is disgusting is that institutions' first line of defense is not
>>>>> mea
>>>>>  culpa with an intention of fixing what went wrong if anything but to
>>>>>  accuse
>>>>>  an individual, usually someone vulnerable, of doing something wrong.
>>>>>  Therefore, not their fault.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Part of the problem here is that we seem to be operating under a
>>>>> deeply
>>>>>  entrenched blame culture, which is reinforced virtually every day by
>>>>> the
>>>>>  lying of politicians and other public officials as a first reaction. I
>>>>>  have
>>>>>  no idea how to overturn this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  larry brownstein
>>>>>  ------ Original Message ------
>>>>>  From: "John Urquhart" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>  To: "the.Duke.of.URL" <[log in to unmask]>;[log in to unmask]
>>>>>  Sent: 21/01/2013 11:53:02
>>>>>  Subject: Re: JSTOR
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  It is significant that JSTOR's statement is not signed by an
>>>>>>  individual accepting responsibility for that statement, or at least
>>>>>>  acting as a point of contact. Had this been done, it would be
>>>>>>  possible to point out to him that the creators of the world's store
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>  knowledge appear to be forced under the present system to surrender
>>>>>>  copyright to the publishers of their work. Otherwise, they would be
>>>>>>  at liberty to publish on the internet their original papers without
>>>>>>  individuals such Aaron Swatrz risking their lives and reason to hack
>>>>>>  into the world's store of knowledge. In the long-run, Swartz's death
>>>>>>  is the responsibility of all those scientists who subscribed to this
>>>>>>  totalitarian system of thought, which perpetuates a class structure
>>>>>>  and bodes ill for the futures of both science and society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Please note: my name,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  John Urquhart
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 16 January 2013 00:37, the.Duke.of.URL <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Whatever one may think of JSTOR's statement, it does indicate that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>  justice department's persecution of Swartz can not be defended on
>>>>>>>  rational
>>>>>>>  grounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   From JSTOR:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Aaron Swartz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  We are deeply saddened to hear the news about Aaron Swartz. We
>>>>>>> extend
>>>>>>>  our
>>>>>>>  heartfelt condolences to Aaron’s family, friends, and everyone who
>>>>>>>  loved,
>>>>>>>  knew, and admired him. He was a truly gifted person who made
>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>  contributions to the development of the internet and the web from
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>  we
>>>>>>>  all benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  We have had inquiries about JSTOR’s view of this sad event given the
>>>>>>>  charges
>>>>>>>  against Aaron and the trial scheduled for April. The case is one
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>  we
>>>>>>>  ourselves had regretted being drawn into from the outset, since
>>>>>>> JSTOR’s
>>>>>>>  mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of
>>>>>>> scholarly
>>>>>>>  knowledge. At the same time, as one of the largest archives of
>>>>>>>  scholarly
>>>>>>>  literature in the world, we must be careful stewards of the
>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>  entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that content. To that
>>>>>>>  end,
>>>>>>>  Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>  civil
>>>>>>>  claims we might have had against him in June 2011.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  JSTOR is a not-for-profit service and a member of the internet
>>>>>>>  community.
>>>>>>>  We
>>>>>>>  will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as
>>>>>>>  widely
>>>>>>>  as
>>>>>>>  possible while balancing the interests of researchers, students,
>>>>>>>  libraries,
>>>>>>>  and publishers as we pursue our commitment to the long-term
>>>>>>>  preservation
>>>>>>>  of
>>>>>>>  this important scholarly literature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  We join those who are mourning this tragic loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  larry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Dr L Brownstein
>>>>>>>  [alt-e]: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Review Editor
>>>>>>>  Radical Statistics
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  "It's difficult to reason someone out of something that they've
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>  been
>>>>>>>  reasoned into."
>>>>>>>  -- Jonathan Swift
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  ****************************************************** Please note
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>  if
>>>>>>>  you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>  this
>>>>>>>  message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
>>>>>>>  'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
>>>>>>>  [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>  views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>  range
>>>>>>>  of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>  out
>>>>>>>  more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read
>>>>>>>  current
>>>>>>>  and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web
>>>>>>> site
>>>>>>>  www.radstats.org.uk.
>>>>>>>  *******************************************************
>>>>>>>
>>>>  ******************************************************
>>>>  Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
>>>>  message will go only to the sender of this message.
>>>>  If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
>>>>  'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
>>>>  to [log in to unmask]
>>>>  Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
>>>> and
>>>>  cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
>>>>  subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
>>>> Radical
>>>>  Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues
>>>> of
>>>>  our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
>>>> www.radstats.org.uk.
>>>>  *******************************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Martin Rathfelder
>>>  Director
>>>  Socialist Health Association
>>>  22 Blair Road
>>>  Manchester
>>>  M16 8NS
>>>  0161 286 1926
>>>  www.sochealth.co.uk
>>>  https://www.facebook.com/Socialist.Health
>>>  @SocialistHealth
>>>
>>>  If you do not wish to be on our mailing list please let us know and we
>>> will
>>>  remove you
>>>
>>
>> ******************************************************
>> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
>> message will go only to the sender of this message.
>> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
>> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
>> to [log in to unmask]
>> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
>> cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
>> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
>> Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
>> our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
>> *******************************************************
>>
>

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************