5.0074 Citations (5/81)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Tue, 21 May 91 14:43:42 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0074. Tuesday, 21 May 1991.


(1) Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:26:15 CDT (13 lines)
From: "Bill Ball" <C476721@UMCVMB>
Subject: the importance of citation--building on previous work

(2) Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:40 CDT (24 lines)
From: Robin Smith <RSMITH@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
Subject: Citations

(3) Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:43 EDT (13 lines)
From: John Lavagnino <LAV@brandeis.bitnet>
Subject: An argument for the abolition of scholarly journals

(4) Date: 18 May 91 17:46:23 EDT (17 lines)
From: George Aichele <73760.1176@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: citation

(5) Date: Mon, 20 May 91 12:06:53 EDT (14 lines)
From: John Wall <JNWEG@NCSUVM>
Subject: Re: 5.0068 Citations (cont.)

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:26:15 CDT
From: "Bill Ball" <C476721@UMCVMB>
Subject: the importance of citation--building on previous work

At a couple of points in the recent discussion over citation indexes the
point has been made that (humanist) academic discourse builds upon
previous work in the field by referring to it. I would find it useful
if someone could direct me to a source or two that fully develops
this argument--in other words, that argues at some length for relatively
heavy referencing and summarizing of previous work in a manuscript.

Bill Ball
c476721@umcvmb
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------32----
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:40 CDT
From: Robin Smith <RSMITH@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
Subject: Citations

May I add another thought to the discussion of alleged citation
statistics? The lag between the submission of an article and its
acceptance is typically several months to a year; the time before it
actually appears in print is often a year or two. And journals
sometimes lag behind their nominal publication dates. Therefore, an
article published (nominally) in 1984 might not actually have been
available for many scholars to read until 1985; allow another year and a
half to get accepted and two more to get in print, and we've virtually
used up five years.

By the way, the nature of citation indexes leads to a useful, though a
bit co- mical, feature. Anyone writing about Descares is bound to cite
Descartes; so, a quick way to find a few articles on Meditation III is
to look up people who cite it. I would imagine the same thing goes for
Shakespeare, or for Homer. As I sit here in front of a terminal, it
occurs to me that there might be some curious citations around for
Biblical scholars.
Robin Smith
Philosophy
Kansas State University
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------15----
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:43 EDT
From: John Lavagnino <LAV@brandeis.bitnet>
Subject: An argument for the abolition of scholarly journals

Just out---a good article by N. David Mermin that calls for the
abolition of scholarly journals: ``Publishing in Computopia,'' Physics
Today, May 1991, pages 9 and 11. A few of its arguments depend in
detail on the working conditions of physicists; nevertheless, it's a
brief and very well written presentation of a point of view that's
familiar to all of us here, but to too few beyond.

John Lavagnino
Department of English and American Literature, Brandeis University
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------28----
Date: 18 May 91 17:46:23 EDT
From: George Aichele <73760.1176@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: citation

I also would like to support Judy Koren against Robert Amsler on how
humanists use citations. I do have a psychologist friend or two
(behaviorists) who would never cite Freud. But my more humanistic
colleagues--even the literary critics!--tend to relish the give and
take, and to cite accordingly. The thought of citing a work merely
because I approved of it or wanted to jump on some bandwagon seems quite
strange to me, but then I don't live in a "publish or perish"
environment ... is it really that bad?

George Aichele
73760.1176@compuserve.com


(5) --------------------------------------------------------------18----
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 12:06:53 EDT
From: John Wall <JNWEG@NCSUVM>
Subject: Re: 5.0068 Citations (cont.)

Another factor ignored in the discussion of citation rates for articles
in the humanities is that the figures given are for citations during the
first five years after publication. Considering the time necessary for
a new article to appear, be read, be used and cited in someone's work, to
have that work submitted for publication, to be sent out to readers, to
be revised and resubmitted, to be accepted, to be typeset, to be proofed,
and finally to appear in a journal that is often years behind in its
more years elapse before a citiation of a "new" article might appear.
I suspect that if the time frame for the search were the period 5 to 10
years after publication, a much higher citation figure would appear.