On 31 Oct 2010, at 23:08, John Vandenberg wrote: > We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected > journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel > comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic > community.
The citation count isn't the only measure within academic journals, though - the reputation of the author should also be borne in mind, i.e. (speaking generally) the reliability at which their previous works have been rated, and hence the likelihood that the new work that they have been published should also be considered worthwhile of attention. And, of course, the level of peer review that the article has undergone - different journals require higher standards of review, and hence will have different initial levels of acceptance/trust from the academic community. Relying on citations alone is definitely a flawed measure, and is not something that we should rely on in solitude if we're interested in covering the latest scientific findings. The funding is almost inconsequential when considering these other metrics, given that they're based almost entirely on alternative sources of reliability (or should be within an ideal information/scientific-based world). Mike Peel _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
