From jfsiege@ilstu.edu Sun Aug 18 13:07:09 2002 Received: from mailscan1.cac.washington.edu (mailscan1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.16]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with SMTP id g7IK78eY056070 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:07:08 -0700 Received: FROM mxu3.u.washington.edu BY mailscan1.cac.washington.edu ; Sun Aug 18 13:07:08 2002 -0700 Received: from merlin.ilstu.edu (merlin.ilstu.edu [138.87.4.8]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.06) with ESMTP id g7IK77bq028727 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 13:07:08 -0700 Received: from jfsieg (line194004.ras.ilstu.edu [138.87.194.4]) by merlin.ilstu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA19892 for ; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:07:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002d01c246f2$badbeb80$04c2578a@cas.ilstu.edu> From: "Janice Siegel" To: References: Subject: Re: Evaluating journals Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:06:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C246C8.D1441A20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C246C8.D1441A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evaluating journalsI find myself in the same situation as my neighbor = and colleague Dr. Johnson. I have been told by my non-classicist = colleagues (which would be all of them) that these are the criteria for = judging the relative value of publication venues: 1. acceptance rate of submissions (number one on the hit parade - this = can make or break your argument here, and this makes sense to some = degree) 2. subscription rate of the journal (read: university libraries) 3. university it is published out of (the bigger the better) 4. make-up of editorial board (again, since the individuals' names might = not mean anything to people out of field, the bigger the names of the = schools the better) 5. letters from classics colleagues from other universities can also = help give them a barometer I understand the reasoning behind this, once I try to put myself in the = situation of having to judge, say, a colleague in Japanese: how in the = world could I tell if what he has accomplished is "outstanding" or just = "really good"? My department is willing to listen to suggestions, so I = too am curious about how others handle this. Cheers, Janice =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: David M. Johnson=20 To: classics@u.washington.edu=20 Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: Evaluating journals My university, Southern Illinois at Carbondale, is making a greater = effort to quantify the quality of journals as part of the ongoing trend = to make this place run more like a business (though even our Chancellor = may soon realize that he ought not to call himself a "campus CEO" given = recent events). I searched the classics archives for some previous = discussion of this matter, and found only the wise qualitative words of = Dan Tompkins, from 1998. It is interesting that our profession is not quite as afflicted by "ranking" notions as others. Social scientists I know rate their colleagues routinely not by judging the quality of their work, but = by noting the status level of journals that publish it. In Classics, = we probably have informal rankings in our head but nothing so formal; = and we recognize that journal acceptance reflects chance and taste as well = as quality. Full text: = http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/listserve_= archives/log98/9801d/9801d.221.html My quandary is that I'm a tenure track classicist in a foreign = language department that doesn't know Classical Philology from Classical = Bulletin; I therefore thought it might be informative to ask the = collective wisdom of the list about journals. While it would indeed be = noble to buck the trend of resorting to such rankings, they are a = reality at my university, and in a university without many classicists = capable of judging one's work, judgments on journals (together with = outside letters, which are subject to their own flaws) will largely = drive the evaluation of my scholarship. No doubt many others on the = list find themselves in similar situations. The only 'objective' source of info on journals I know of are the = figures published by the APA's CSWMG to check acceptance rates and other = figures for fairness regarding gender and ethnicity. It is easy enough = to calculate overall acceptance rates from these figures, but these = figures aren't terribly informative, even as such figures go: most of = the journals tracked by the APA in 1997, 1998, and 1999 accepted between = 35 and 40 percent of their submissions. And of couse the APA figures = are only for North American Journals. So here, at last, are my querries: a) Is it indeed your feeling that there is no clear hierarchy of = classical journals, as the rough parity in acceptance rates would seem = to indicate? b) Is there any existing source for judging classical journal = prestige, whether it be an article somewhere, a previous discussion on = this list or elsewhere else that I have missed, or something else? c) If you are game, what are your picks for the top 10, say, general = classical journals worldwide? My university is trying to come up with a = list of journals characterized as "Outstanding recognition in the field, = highly prestigious"; such journals, in the adminstrative lingo, "are = widely considered career builders and that bring the greatest prestige = and visibility to colleagues in your field." Such journals rank "5" on = a scale of 1-5. d) Any similar picks for a similar lists in classical sub-fields such = as philosophy and history? David Johnson --=20 David M. Johnson Assistant Professor Classics Section Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures-4521 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Carbondale IL 62901-4521 ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C246C8.D1441A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evaluating journals
I find myself in the same situation as = my neighbor=20 and colleague Dr. Johnson. I have been told by my non-classicist = colleagues=20 (which would be all of them) that these are the criteria for = judging the=20 relative value of publication venues:
 
1. acceptance rate = of submissions (number=20 one on the hit parade - this can make or break your argument here, and = this=20 makes sense to some degree)
2. subscription rate of the journal = (read:=20 university libraries)
3. university it is published out of = (the bigger=20 the better)
4. make-up of editorial board (again, = since the=20 individuals' names might not mean anything to people out of field, the = bigger=20 the names of the schools the better)
5. letters from classics colleagues = from other=20 universities can also help give them a barometer
 
I understand the reasoning behind this, = once=20 I try to put myself in the situation of having to judge, say, a = colleague=20 in Japanese: how in the world could I tell if what he has accomplished = is=20 "outstanding" or just "really good"? My department is willing to listen = to=20 suggestions, so I too am curious about how others handle = this.
 
Cheers, Janice
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 David M. = Johnson=20
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 = 2:54=20 PM
Subject: Evaluating = journals

My university, Southern Illinois at Carbondale, is making a = greater=20 effort to quantify the quality of journals as part of the ongoing = trend to=20 make this place run more like a business (though even our Chancellor = may soon=20 realize that he ought not to call himself a "campus CEO" given recent=20 events).  I searched the classics archives for some previous = discussion=20 of this matter, and found only the wise qualitative words of Dan = Tompkins,=20 from 1998.

It is = interesting that=20 our profession is not quite as afflicted by
"ranking" = notions as=20 others.  Social scientists I know rate = their
colleagues = routinely=20 not by judging the quality of their work, but = by
noting the = status level=20 of journals that publish it.  In Classics, = we
probably have = informal=20 rankings in our head but nothing so formal; and = we
recognize = that journal=20 acceptance reflects chance and taste as well = as
quality.
Full text:=20 = http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/listserve_archives/log98/9801d/9801d.221.html

My quandary is that I'm a tenure track classicist in a foreign = language=20 department that doesn't know Classical Philology from Classical = Bulletin; I=20 therefore thought it might be informative to ask the collective wisdom = of the=20 list about journals.  While it would indeed be noble to buck the = trend of=20 resorting to such rankings, they are a reality at my university, and = in a=20 university without many classicists capable of judging one's work, = judgments=20 on journals (together with outside letters, which are subject to their = own=20 flaws) will largely drive the evaluation of my = scholarship.   No=20 doubt many others on the list find themselves in similar = situations.

The only 'objective' source of info on journals I know of are the = figures=20 published by the APA's CSWMG to check acceptance rates and other = figures for=20 fairness regarding gender and ethnicity.  It is easy enough to = calculate=20 overall acceptance rates from these figures, but these figures aren't = terribly=20 informative, even as such figures go: most of the journals tracked by = the APA=20 in 1997, 1998, and 1999 accepted between 35 and 40 percent of their=20 submissions.   And of couse the APA figures are only for = North=20 American Journals.

So here, at last, are my querries:
 
a)  Is it indeed your feeling that there is no clear = hierarchy of=20 classical journals, as the rough parity in acceptance rates would seem = to=20 indicate?

b) Is there any existing source for judging classical journal = prestige,=20 whether it be an article somewhere, a previous discussion on this list = or=20 elsewhere else that I have missed, or something else?

c) If you are game, what are your picks for the top 10, say, = general=20 classical journals worldwide?  My university is trying to come up = with a=20 list of journals characterized as "Outstanding recognition in the = field,=20 highly prestigious";  such journals, in the adminstrative lingo, = "are=20 widely considered career builders and that bring the greatest prestige = and=20 visibility to colleagues in your field."   Such journals = rank "5" on=20 a scale of 1-5.
 
d) Any similar picks for a similar lists in classical sub-fields = such as=20 philosophy and history?

David Johnson


--
David M. Johnson
Assistant Professor
Classics=20 Section
Department of Foreign Languages and = Literatures-4521
Southern=20 Illinois University, Carbondale
Carbondale IL =20 62901-4521
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C246C8.D1441A20-- .