Comments on: Art Bulletin’s the Best? http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147 News for Art Historians Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:42:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Craig http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147&cpage=1#comment-143335 Craig Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:47:51 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147#comment-143335 Thanks, Jon, for an interesting posting. I imagine the claim is largely marketing lingo (with a bit of serious aspirational thinking thrown in -- saying it enough might make it true). But while I expect this sort of bluster from phone companies and potato chip makers, it is a bit disheartening to hear it from a journal that's genuinely important. Thanks, Jon, for an interesting posting. I imagine the claim is largely marketing lingo (with a bit of serious aspirational thinking thrown in — saying it enough might make it true). But while I expect this sort of bluster from phone companies and potato chip makers, it is a bit disheartening to hear it from a journal that’s genuinely important.

]]> By: Katrina http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147&cpage=1#comment-143302 Katrina Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:05:06 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147#comment-143302 The Australian rankings were debated quite a bit in Australian universities. Not least because the way journals were ranked reflected how universities would assess the publication output of academics. A lot of the choices were considered odd, though one couldn't really argue with most of the journals that were ranked in the top tier. The low rankings were also a bit off, specialist journals often ranked low as did those in languages other than English. The list is apparently being revised at the moment. The Australian rankings were debated quite a bit in Australian universities. Not least because the way journals were ranked reflected how universities would assess the publication output of academics. A lot of the choices were considered odd, though one couldn’t really argue with most of the journals that were ranked in the top tier. The low rankings were also a bit off, specialist journals often ranked low as did those in languages other than English. The list is apparently being revised at the moment.

]]> By: sk http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147&cpage=1#comment-143286 sk Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:24:57 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147#comment-143286 If you investigate the fine print on the Norwegian ranking, you'll find that their "2" publications are in fact ranked higher than the "1" publications ("There are two levels: Ordinary publication channels (level 1) and highly prestigious publication channels (level 2)," from http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/kanaler/hjelp.do). Furthermore, Gregory is right, it's all marketing lingo. And the typically American tendency to appoint oneself "the leading," "the best," or "world champions." Do Japanese baseball teams have a chance to qualify for the World Series? Of course not. If you investigate the fine print on the Norwegian ranking, you’ll find that their “2″ publications are in fact ranked higher than the “1″ publications (“There are two levels: Ordinary publication channels (level 1) and highly prestigious publication channels (level 2),” from http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/kanaler/hjelp.do).

Furthermore, Gregory is right, it’s all marketing lingo. And the typically American tendency to appoint oneself “the leading,” “the best,” or “world champions.” Do Japanese baseball teams have a chance to qualify for the World Series? Of course not.

]]> By: Gregory Galligan, Ph. D. http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147&cpage=1#comment-143276 Gregory Galligan, Ph. D. Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:19:13 +0000 http://arthistorynewsletter.com/blog/?p=5147#comment-143276 I'm not sure "authority" is the issue, but, rather, the impeccable and rarely matched quality of scholarly research that lay behind the articles found in the Art Bulletin that lends considerable justification to the claim. Beyond that, it's all marketeting lingo, i.e. hardly worthy of much intellectual fuss. I’m not sure “authority” is the issue, but, rather, the impeccable and rarely matched quality of scholarly research that lay behind the articles found in the Art Bulletin that lends considerable justification to the claim. Beyond that, it’s all marketeting lingo, i.e. hardly worthy of much intellectual fuss.

]]>