Fwd: [The Code4Lib Journal] Comment: "Editorial Introduction: The Code4Lib Journal Experiment, Rejection Rates, and Peer Review"

[Edward M. Corrado]

There was an interesting comment on the Code4Lib Journal introduction I wrote for Issue 10. If anyone knows of anything that can respond to Laurie's question, I'd encourage you to comment on the Web site.....   Edward

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: [The Code4Lib Journal] Comment: "Editorial Introduction: The Code4Lib Journal Experiment, Rejection Rates, and Peer Review"
To: ecor...@ecorrado.us


New comment on your post "Editorial Introduction: The Code4Lib Journal Experiment, Rejection Rates, and Peer Review"
Author : Laurie (
Comment:
I admit I am one of the tenure-track librarians who just found this page in a search for information for my dossier.

Aware that the journal is not ranked and not peer-reviewed, I'm looking for qualitative information - has the journal, as a whole, received praise from prominent leaders or publications?

You can see all comments on this post here:
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/3277#comments

[Jonathan Rochkind]

My answer is "Yes", but I don't have any examples at hand. Although I
seem to recall that some Library Journal thing hilighted Kelley's recent
editorial somewhere.

But the best way to find out is probably just to google "Code4Lib
Journal" and see for yourself who is saying what about it. We're
librarians and information professionals, we know how to find this out
for ourselves, right? And probably shoudln't take the word of a
self-interested party like the Journal itself on the topic of whether
it's well respected in the field!

I wonder if our journal has it's citation's tracked by any of the
citation tracking services. We've now been around enough that we've been
cited enough times to theoretically start showing up in such things. But
I doubt the big commercial services track any web-only open-access
publications, do they? Maybe Google Scholar, or CiteSeerX, or
something? Would be an interesting thing to look at, and the results
could maybe be a Code4Lib Journal article. :)

I checked JCR (because I've made it so easy to do in my library
catalog!), and the Code4Lib Journal is not in JCR. Also don't see
anything in CiteSeerX. All our articles are in Google Scholar, but G.S.
doesn't report any citations for any of them. (I know some of our
articles HAVE been cited in scholarly journals, I've seen it).

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Code4Lib Journal-discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to c4lj-d...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to c4lj-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/c4lj-discuss?hl=en.
>
>

[Jonathan Rochkind]

PS: I believe, along with Ed, that we ARE peer-reviewed. Every article
is accepted (or rejected) and edited by peers in the library technology
field. Isn't that peer review? But we aren't "blind refereed".

[Jodi Schneider]

We were very happy when Barbara Tillett promoted Kelley's first
article about LCSH (issue 1?) to LC.

Some of the commentary on this issue's MARC article was "this should
be taught in library schools".

The fact that we are indexed in EBSCO (and elsewhere?) may be relevant
to those looking for quality 'metrics'.

I think a full description of our editorial process should allow
people to decide whether it's peer-reviewed enough for their tastes.

-Jodi

[Kelley McGrath]

I was happy that LC noticed that article, too, and my editorial was
mentioned in American Libraries Direct. Not being above the occasional
vanity search in Google Scholar, I know that the faceted LCSH article
was cited twice (well, GS says 3x, but the last appears to be in
error) and the getting moving image FRBR data out of MARC article has
been cited once. Scrolling through C4LJ articles in GS, some have been
cited and I see that "Using OAI-ORE to Transform Digital Repositories
into Interoperable Storage and Services Applications" has been cited
six times, as has "The Planets Testbed: Science for Digital
Preservation."

More than citations, though, I think the journal has a tremendous
practical impact. People actually read it and use the information they
get there. If you want to publish to communicate and not just to check
off some requirement, C4LJ is a great venue. The large number of
submissions we've gotten recently suggests that a lot of people would
like to be part of it.

Whether that will impress a tenure committee is another thing, though.

Kelley