Journalologism seems like an insular discipline, by medical scientists, overlooking the already substantial research discipline of biblio-, infor-, scientometrics.
If you want to study scientific communication, it is downright daft to limit yourself to the journal as your only one unit of analysis.
When you study something, you have to focus somewhere. It is not "daft" to focus on something, even if you and everyone else know there is more out there - you only have limited time and effort. The hope is that others will focus on the other things.
The issue is that journals have already been studies for over 60 years (closer to 100 actually), in the wider context of general scientific communication. You can find literally thousands of papers dealing with questions about journals in the bibliometric/scientometric literature.
Coining a new discipline without acknowledging prior research, while at the same time choosing an arbitrary delimitation of your object of study (scientific communication), is at the best daft and at the worst a scam.
This is a popular science article about the work of a bunch of researchers. I think it's fair to assume the researchers have an understanding of how their work fits into the larger field in a way not represented by the author of the popular science article.
This is nothing surprising. The study of bibliometrics has been going on since the 1960s, and the field of bibliography (in its modern academic sense) is a lot older than that.
I'm confused why you lead with "This is nothing surprising." The article does not present it as a surprise, but as something the reader may not know - which is standard for any article. The author is also clear in explaining that this process has been going on for decades.
The author is painting a picture that says that the study of journals started in the late 89's. That is factually wrong, and overlooks the much larger fields of bibliography and bibliometrics.
I figured the person you were responding to held that attitude. That if an idea is not novel its not worth publishing, like this story in their opinion.
Journalologism seems like an insular discipline, by medical scientists, overlooking the already substantial research discipline of biblio-, infor-, scientometrics.
If you want to study scientific communication, it is downright daft to limit yourself to the journal as your only one unit of analysis.
When you study something, you have to focus somewhere. It is not "daft" to focus on something, even if you and everyone else know there is more out there - you only have limited time and effort. The hope is that others will focus on the other things.
The issue is that journals have already been studies for over 60 years (closer to 100 actually), in the wider context of general scientific communication. You can find literally thousands of papers dealing with questions about journals in the bibliometric/scientometric literature. Coining a new discipline without acknowledging prior research, while at the same time choosing an arbitrary delimitation of your object of study (scientific communication), is at the best daft and at the worst a scam.
This is a popular science article about the work of a bunch of researchers. I think it's fair to assume the researchers have an understanding of how their work fits into the larger field in a way not represented by the author of the popular science article.
That's fine, but surely these other fields have made some discoveries that would be relevant to their work.
But who journalologises the journalologists?
jornalolologists
This is nothing surprising. The study of bibliometrics has been going on since the 1960s, and the field of bibliography (in its modern academic sense) is a lot older than that.
I'm confused why you lead with "This is nothing surprising." The article does not present it as a surprise, but as something the reader may not know - which is standard for any article. The author is also clear in explaining that this process has been going on for decades.
The author is painting a picture that says that the study of journals started in the late 89's. That is factually wrong, and overlooks the much larger fields of bibliography and bibliometrics.
Its common to think if your research results are not novel it isnt worth publishing. That's one reason why there is a replication crisis.
I am also aware of that, and it's talked about in the article as well. What relationship does that fact have with our current discussion?
I figured the person you were responding to held that attitude. That if an idea is not novel its not worth publishing, like this story in their opinion.