Book Reviews Published in the Journal of Community Practice
Areas of Expertise Survey from the Journal of Community Practice
As editors of the Journal of Community Practice, we are writing to ask if you would take a few minutes to complete our Areas of Expertise Survey and identify your substantive, methodological and practice areas of expertise in the field of community practice. This information will be used to update our reviewer database and facilitate the manuscript review process.
Please click on the following link to go directly to the survey:
Thank you for all that you do to support the Journal of Community Practice and macro practice.
Lorraine M. Gutierrez, PhD
Anna Maria Santiago, PhD
Tracy M. Soska, MSW
Did you know?
The Journal of Community Practice is an extremely important title in the Routledge/Taylor & Francis Social Work and Public Health collection. Just by downloads alone, it is easy to see why the Journal of Community Practice stands out at Taylor & Francis and the field in general:
From 2009 to 2011 Full Text Downloads via Taylor & Francis Online (and our previous web platform, informaworld) were consistently higher for the Journal of Community Practice than the average for all Routledge/T&F Social Work and Public Health Journals:
• On average, articles from the Journal of Community Practice are downloaded 1,862 times per month.
• From January 2011 to May 2012, the journal has received a total of 31,664 full-text article downloads.
• Articles from the Journal of Community Practice were downloaded 13,760 times by EBSCOHost users in 2011 alone – bringing the average from TFO and EBSCO to over 3,000 downloads per month
Also, here are our index scores: Journal of Community Practice 2000 – 2009 H index of 15 / G index of 19.
H-Index and JCP
In the article, “Ranking Disciplinary Journals With The Google Scholar H-Index: A New Tool For Constructing Cases for Tenure, Promotion, and Other Professional Decisions,” authors Hodge & Lacasse use Google Scholar to determine h-index and g-index information for a large list of journals. This process is flawed for a number of reasons:
• The coverage is unknown and not disclosed [it is assumed to be larger than either Scopus or the Web of Science].
• We are not entirely sure what Google Scholar counts as a “scholarly research output.”
• Citation matching has been criticized for being unreliable, using an opaque algorithm, and duplicating citation counting from multiple versions (e.g. pre-print, publisher version, repository copy).
• There is no limit on self-citations, which inflate the numbers. [Thomson’s JCR/Impact factor only allows 20% of self-citations to be included].
This does not mean that the Google Scholar H-Index has more flaws than every other system in the journal measuring world - it means that we should be cautious when attempting to measure the “worth” of a journal by numbers alone.
h-index: The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. It is designed to take into account both productivity (number of articles published) and impact (number of citations received).
g-index: In simple terms, this means that an author that produces n articles is expected to have, on average, n citations for each of them, in order to have a g-index of n. In this way, it is similar to the h-index, with the difference that the number of citations per article is not explicit.
Jessica O. MacDonald
Managing Editor, Social Work and Public Health
Taylor & Francis Group
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106
Ph: (215) 625-8900 ext. 374
Fax: (215) 625-2940