I think that some of that would be fine - but one thing that has kept
JASSS special vis the other simulation journals has been the
social/theory side of things and the philosophy of simulation. I think
we would want to keep that and not just focus on techniques and math.
On 12/2/2014 1:29 PM, Sallach, David L. wrote:
> I agree that JASSS has been open to all the social sciences, plus other
> research domains in which research strategies are methodologically
> relevant. If we wish to emphasize interdisciplinarity in the journal,
> we may want to especially encourage research that explores cross-domain
> interaction.
>
> As long as we are having this type of discussion, there is another
> question that pertains to JASSS focus. If the progression of other
> disciplines is any indication, we can expect the role of simulation in
> the research process to shift. More innovations will be in domain
> mathematics and/or its validation, with simulation models exploring the
> resulting spaces and shapes, including how the modeled processes scale
> up. Should we expect JASSS to publish mathematical innovations and
> their associated validation techniques, as well as the simulation itself?
>
> David L. Sallach, Social Scientist
> Social and Behavioral Systems
> Systems Science Center
> Global Security Sciences Division
> Argonne National Laboratory
> 9700 South Cass Avenue
> Argonne, IL 60439
> (630) 252-5760
>
> From: Claudio Cioffi-Revilla <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: Claudio Cioffi-Revilla <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 8:51 AM
> To: "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: [SIMSOC] JASSS "Scope"
>
> JASSS as it has always been: focused on computational social science,
> not on just computational sociology. Many excellent papers across *all*
> the social sciences, and complex adaptive social systems, have been
> published in the Journal, including computational sociology. My own
> research interests are on conflict, climate change, disasters, complex
> crises, and CSS methodology, and I have always seen JASSS as a premier
> outlet for all of these and other topics, as long as the CSS approach is
> central. JASSS is a great asset to the CSS community precisely because
> it has managed to stay away from a single computational discipline. It
> should remain that way and stay abreast of the latest developments and
> advances in CSS.
>
>
> ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
> Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, Ph.D.
> Professor of Computational Social Science
> Interim Vice President for Research
> Director, Center for Social Complexity
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive, MSN 3A2
> Fairfax, Virginia 22030 USA
> Tel. (703) 993–2268 | kheflin2 AT gmu DOT edu
> Executive Assistant: Ms. Kelly Heflin
>
> /All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point
> is to discover them.—/Galileo Galilei
>
>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Edmund Chattoe-Brown
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Three thoughts:
>>
>> 1) Having one paper rejected is not very good evidence for base for any
>> "trend" in the policy or publication pattern of JASSS. Even having it
>> published in a paper with a higher IF doesn't necessarily make it a
>> better paper. (This is a worryingly common delusion amongst academics:
>> See "“Censorship”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly and Qualitative
>> Research: Not So Much Aced Out as an Own Goal?" on
>> https://leicester.academia.edu/EdmundChattoeBrown.)
>> 2) JASSS can only publish what it receives. It is possible that, for
>> example, psychology is less aware on average of this as a publishing
>> outlet than sociology is. That is certainly something that could be
>> investigated (and ESSA is already offering money to reach new
>> communities) but I doubt it is a "policy" nor resolvable by policy.
>> 3) I am not sure that the pursuit of impact factor is a very wise goal.
>> A free online journal will always get a "boost" over a print journal
>> (because increasingly people cite what they can get not what they need.)
>> It may be a tactless example but an IF of 1.733 puts JASSS at 29 in the
>> 138 journal sociology list. That is pretty good for such a specialist
>> journal. Many of the journals above it are general and the specialist
>> ones usually have large practitioner readerships (Journal of Marriage
>> and the Family, Sociology of Education.) There are a few exceptions to
>> these patterns but on the whole I doubt we would _expect_ to be able to
>> beat most of these journals in impact. Let's submit, review and publish
>> the best articles we can (so that people will want to cite them) and the
>> IF will take care of itself.
>>
>> I think there are useful discussions to be had about reaching and
>> including small or nascent ABM communities (history, criminology,
>> education, Social Network Analysis) both for JASSS and ESSA/WCSS but
>> this is a matter of "marketing" and personal contact/persuasion not
>> JASSS "policy". Inviting these groups to put together themes, tracks or
>> special issues is an option (as would be commissioning rolling subject
>> area reviews: See American Behavioural Scientist 1999, 42(10) for four
>> examples) but this doesn't really bear on the bulk of JASSS business.
>> (To get JASSS rolling back in 1998, we did a lot of persuasion to get
>> credible submissions until after a year or so people would do it
>> themselves. If we want more psych - or whatever - in JASSS, who knows a
>> really good "mainstream" psych who would be willing to be persuaded to
>> put something in?)
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Edmund
>>
>> --
>> Edmund Chattoe-Brown
>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.fastmail.com - Accessible with your email software
>> or over the web
>
|