Re: [asa] gonzalez' citation record

From: PvM <>
Date: Fri May 25 2007 - 13:42:04 EDT

I am just interested in people realizing how to interpret the data you
provide. A simplistic comparison of cites/year overestimates the
impact of the earlier papers as you point out.

You claim that my response does not address the issue, feel free to
ignore it thus, but also remember that the ISU's decision is based on
the work and promise of the work while at ISU.

On the contrary, I am not interested in explaining it away, I am
interested in providing a more balanced story than just asserting that
this is a clear case of viewpoint discrimination.

I will 'give it a rest' when I believe the full story has been presented.

ISI is indeed a highly reputable source, what you do with the data
however is not something ISI controls and as I have shown, there are
many ways to look at the data. It's not just the volume of
publications, but also the nature of the work that led to the
publication. Was it original work started at ISU, was it a
continuation of UW sponsored work? All these issues need be to be
considered lest we fall for the same simplistic argument provided by
the DI namely that all that matters is to publish more than 15 papers
and tenure will be granted.

What happened in 2004? Can you provide us with a table of publications per year?
Have you read the Chronicle of higher Education article?

<quote>Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez's publication record
would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most
universities, according to Mr. Hirsch. But Mr. Gonzalez completed the
best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral
work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of
Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off
since then.

"It looks like it slowed down considerably," said Mr. Hirsch,
stressing that he has not studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail and is
not an expert on his tenure case. "It's not clear that he started new
things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant
professor at Iowa State."

That pattern may have hurt his case. "Tenure review only deals with
his work since he came to Iowa State," said John McCarroll, a
spokesman for the university.

When considering a tenure case, faculty committees try to anticipate
what kind of work a professor will accomplish in the future. "The only
reason the previous record is relevant is the extent to which it can
predict future performance," said Mr. Hirsch. "Generally, it's a good
indication, but in some cases it's not." </quote>

I am sorry that my comments cause you concern, still, these are
relevant points to be considered.

And let's see if we can keep this a polite discussion?

In Christ.

On 5/25/07, Ted Davis <> wrote:
> Give it a rest, Pim.
> Papers published in 2005-7 (of which he has several) aren't going to be
> cited nearly as often, yet, as those published in earlier years. It's so
> obvious that I should not have to say this. My point is that his work is
> being cited all the time, now, and much more now than in earlier years. 40
> citations thus far in 2007, with the average for 2002-6 being around
> 155/year.
> I am obviously not defending any comments from TDI. Nor would I defend
> those from PT, for that matter. I'm giving factual information from a
> highly reliable source. Citations don't get invented by someone to suit a
> given political purpose. And yes, I am suggesting that TDI and PT tend to
> spin information in certain directions. My "spin" is the truth, whatever
> the truth happens to be.
> A further comment on recent work. I see that the text, Observational
> Astronomy, was first published in 1991 and authored by Scott Birney alone,
> published by Cambridge. The second edition (2006, also cambridge) adds
> Gonzalez and David Oesper as authors. I do not know the details about this
> book and gonzalez' contribution to it, but this much is clear and should be
> obvious. (1) Birney was born in 1926. To publish a new edition 15 years
> later, two much younger scientists join with him, one a junior scientist
> (Gonzalez) and one a second-career science educator (Oesper) with much less
> professional experience in astronomy than Gonzalez. You have to think that
> Guillermo did a lot of the work updating this book, and Cambridge isn't
> exactly a backwater publisher of science texts, so you have to conclude that
> this is a major intellectual product on Gonzalez' c.v. If something like
> this by itself isn't worth two or three good articles, then there is no
> justice in academic credentialing. (And I understand that some would say
> exactly that. There are those, for example, who think that major scholarly
> editorial projects are not worth much acadamic credit, either. Many don't
> agree with that view, but others do. I speak from experience.)
> Again, Pim, give it a rest. And, please try to provide a satisfactory
> response--a response that would satisfy a neutral person with no personal
> interest in Gonzalez' situation and without a vested interest either way in
> ID--to my point about the absence of petitions vs Dawkins and company on
> their campuses and the presence of one spearheaded by the advisor to the
> campus atheist group on Gonzalez' campus. That's a salient fact, Pim, and I
> think you keep trying to explain it away.
> ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 25 13:42:25 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 25 2007 - 13:42:25 EDT