cs_dude
Junior member
Posts: 88
|
 |
« on: December 16, 2009, 07:55:22 AM » |
|
My question is about the order of authorship - perhaps this doesn't even matter, in which case my worries are pointless, something useful to know too :-)
I'm curious about those looking at CVs of non-tenured academics, which would carry more academic "umpf", being first or second author in a well known proceeding/journal or first of second author in a short chapter of a book (there are three authors)?
Everyone in my field (CS) will know the conference proceedings (SIGCSE) and in CS proceedings carry pretty much the same weight as journals. No one will know the book (and it will remain most likely so after it is published)
There are 3 of us working on both on this paper for SIGCSE and the book chapter. Assuming our contributions to be somewhat equal and chances for acceptance are too, would it be beneficial to be listed 1st or 2nd author in one over the other when we negotiate this out?
My guess would be 1st or 2nd author on a SIGCSE paper (and 3rd in the book chapter) would be preferable to the reverse - what do those who actually evaluate CV/applications for academic posts think? Does it matter?
Thanks, I am working hard to increase my set of publications, so I am, no doubt, slightly obsessive about this sort of stuff at the moment.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thehighking
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2009, 08:06:03 AM » |
|
This may be field specific, but a peer reviewed article always trumps everything else. Even though many book chapters are peer reviewed, many people don't recognize this.
Personally, I find this unfortunate...but it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
embitteredhistorian
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2009, 09:53:29 AM » |
|
This may be field specific, but a peer reviewed article always trumps everything else. Even though many book chapters are peer reviewed, many people don't recognize this.
Personally, I find this unfortunate...but it is what it is.
In my field, many book chapters are written by friends of the editor and are of dubious quality. I only realized this towards the end of my Ph.D. thesis and was quite shocked at it. Peer-reviewed articles, however, are the mana of the gods. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
msparticularity
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2009, 01:07:55 PM » |
|
This may be field specific, but a peer reviewed article always trumps everything else. Even though many book chapters are peer reviewed, many people don't recognize this.
Personally, I find this unfortunate...but it is what it is.
In my field, many book chapters are written by friends of the editor and are of dubious quality. I only realized this towards the end of my Ph.D. thesis and was quite shocked at it. Peer-reviewed articles, however, are the mana of the gods. I also think there's a self-reinforcing cycle at work with the book chapters. For example, since I know they won't really count for much on my CV, I don't use them for my "real" research--I only do one when it gives me a chance to write an essay about something I'm thinking about and that relates to my other work. These may be interesting topics and become a part of some larger discussion in my field, but I don't know that they're really peer-review material. The thing is, many/most of us treat book chapters that way--we use them as space to speculate and to converse--so that is now the perception that is attached to them. This kind of scholarly conversation is a really important thing, IMO, but in our current "accountability" culture it doesn't "count" as scholarship. They become more of a part of socialization in and service to the field. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Once admit that the sole verifiable or fruitful object of knowledge is the particular set of changes that generate the object of study...and no intelligible question can be asked about what, by assumption, lies outside." John Dewey
"Be particular." Jill Conner Browne
|
|
|
cs_dude
Junior member
Posts: 88
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2009, 01:14:05 PM » |
|
really interesting posts, thanks all who have posted so far, gives me some perspective .. keep them coming. I think I will concentrate my efforts on peer reviewed articles at this point in my career.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
svenc
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2009, 01:17:07 PM » |
|
Dude, I'm not in your field, but it looks like you've already answered your own question: Everyone in my field (CS) will know the conference proceedings (SIGCSE) and in CS proceedings carry pretty much the same weight as journals. No one will know the book (and it will remain most likely so after it is published)
From my experience (R1, social sciences), book chapters only count for "rounding out" a CV, and usually can not replace a journal publication. Over a longer time frame, a ten-year-old book chapter that has been heavily cited may be more valuable to some than a ten-year-old journal article with few citations, but even that may not universally be true. If you are really being asked to trade off authorship order on a journal article with the order on a book chapter, go for the good placement on the article. That may be not be true for all disciplines, but from what you've written above it seems like your field and situation (i.e., you don't expect this book to have high impact) is not the exception. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 01:18:43 PM by svenc »
|
Logged
|
In foris veritas.
|
|
|
|
embitteredhistorian
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2009, 07:41:55 PM » |
|
This may be field specific, but a peer reviewed article always trumps everything else. Even though many book chapters are peer reviewed, many people don't recognize this.
Personally, I find this unfortunate...but it is what it is.
In my field, many book chapters are written by friends of the editor and are of dubious quality. I only realized this towards the end of my Ph.D. thesis and was quite shocked at it. Peer-reviewed articles, however, are the mana of the gods. I also think there's a self-reinforcing cycle at work with the book chapters. For example, since I know they won't really count for much on my CV, I don't use them for my "real" research--I only do one when it gives me a chance to write an essay about something I'm thinking about and that relates to my other work. These may be interesting topics and become a part of some larger discussion in my field, but I don't know that they're really peer-review material. The thing is, many/most of us treat book chapters that way--we use them as space to speculate and to converse--so that is now the perception that is attached to them. This kind of scholarly conversation is a really important thing, IMO, but in our current "accountability" culture it doesn't "count" as scholarship. They become more of a part of socialization in and service to the field. This is a very good way to put it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
runwithscissors
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2009, 07:53:50 PM » |
|
Though I'm not in computer science I do hear that often the conference proceedings are valued at equal weight or higher than journal publications within the discipline (although I also hear that this is shifting to some degree). In this game it seems that prestige is everything, so I would go with what your more senior colleagues would suggest is the better route. And I would chime with others here and suggest that book chapters are only useful if you have more of the other more prestigious publications under your belt.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Space is invisible mind dust, and stars are but wishes"
|
|
|
joebuilderit
New member
Posts: 2
I'm a lover of the outdoors and blog about camping
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2009, 11:53:12 AM » |
|
Book chapters are certainly helpful, and better than none... however a peer reviewed paper is top notch CV material. --------------------------- ~full time teacher, part time camper. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
svenc
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2009, 04:02:43 PM » |
|
Book chapters are certainly helpful, and better than none... however a peer reviewed paper is top notch CV material. --------------------------- ~full time teacher, part time camper. And hobby spammer? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In foris veritas.
|
|
|
|
