It is amazing that Peter Hall has problems with getting cited :)). To
me, high immediacy means that a journal publishes some crap that
nobody bothers to reproduce and reuse after three years. Annals' 10+
years of citation half life are far more honorable.
Here are the links to the paper Tony mentioned: doi:10.1214/09-STS285,
http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1255009002. I could not find it on
arXiv... I always hated its front end (and was suggesting RePEc to Jim
Pitman as a better thought-through service; he did not agree though).
On 10/30/09, Lachenbruch, Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, there is a fascinating article in Statistical
> Science that just appeared on Citation Indexes. It criticizes them on a
> variety of grounds, mainly that they oversimplify the issue of
> evaluating research, evaluating departments, etc.
> It's available through ArXiv or if you're a member of IMS you may
> already have gotten it.
--
Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name
Small print: I use this email account for mailing lists only.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
