Comments on disequilibrium: Circular reasoning and the debasement of science

No, the LP method uses all journals in the list of...

2009-10-08T21:06:15.842-05:00

No, the LP method uses all journals in the list of journals being ranked, not all journals The list is arbitrary and the ranking is sensitive to things like the exclusion of field journals. It is not, therefore, objective. The Engemann/Wall ranking is sensitive only to the choice of the top 7 journals, which they happily admit is subjective but honest. The LP method is the former but not the latter.

gocards - The technique in the paper, summarized ...

2009-10-07T23:03:20.562-05:00

gocards -

The technique in the paper, summarized briefly, is (1) figure out the top 7 (why not 8? or 3?) cited journals, and declare these authoritative, then (2) rank journals by the number of cites they receive. This *IS* the LP method, highly simplified, which the paper critiques. The LP method, however, would (i) not assume 7, but use all, and (ii) iteratively determine their importance.

Hey dummy, did you even read the article? Or are y...

2009-10-07T22:52:59.376-05:00

Hey dummy, did you even read the article? Or are you afraid of all the "wordy stuff"? The top general journals are not called top because of their ranking. They are chosen in a first stage and are then ranked just like the rest of the journals. You missed the entire point that the iterative process is only seemingly objective. If you understood the math as well as your snarkiness suggests, then you might be able to understand that.