{"title":"影响:我们还有机会吗?","authors":"Kristopher M. Goodrich, David Van Horn","doi":"10.1080/01933922.2022.2129939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As noted by other scholars (i.e., Fernando & Minton, 2011; Hunter et al., 2018), journal-level impact (often referred to as impact factor) is a complex subject and has important meaning for different stakeholders. Journal level impact has been used by different colleges and universities to help inform how they evaluate faculty for formative and summative evaluation processes (Barrio Minton & Fernando, 2011), which can have a tremendous impact on faculty members’ academic careers. Fernando and Barrio Minton have criticized the bias and lack of fairness surrounding this system; however, this might inform the decision where scholars may seek to publish their academic work, either within a certain journal or other, or within a journal within a certain field or not (Hunter et al., 2018). Hunter and colleagues have expressed the potential consequences to professional identity and its relationship to program accreditation, as there is an implied obligation within Council for Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accreditation guides to have Counselor Educators from CACREP-accredited program publish in Counselor Education-related journals. Further, some scholars have used journal metrics as a proxy to explain field differences, arguing the quality of one field in comparison to another based around impact factor differences found for their journals; others have discussed journal-based differences in fields due to number of issues and page counts across different journals (Hunter et al., 2018). Following this line of thinking, Hunter and colleagues have suggested that our field and journals need to consider alternative forms of impact. The politics surrounding journal-level impact is not something that we wish to explore in within this editorial; however, as I (KMG) move toward the end of my term as editor of JSGW, the issues surrounding impact, especially impact as it relates to our own journal (and other journals within our field of Counselor Education) is something that I believe needs further evaluation. Working in tandem with a doctoral student (DJVH), we wish to present a counter-narrative to what has been previously discussed within the field as a rationale for why many of our journals may have not yet received formal impact factors. As two individuals who were both trained in CACREP-accredited masters programs, and who have or are seeking doctoral degrees in CACREP-accredited doctoral programs, we come from within the field and seek a call for attention that we hope will lead to a call to action as we continue our important work in Counselor Education. It is ultimately our argument that the size of journals, the number of pages, or issues within journal volumes do not alone explain the lack of journal-level impact for many of the journals within our fields, as argued by others. Instead, it is our belief that there are actions that we could, and should, take as a field that would not only support us in moving our journals toward formal impact factors; they may also help us in ensuring that the scholarship from our field reflects the rigor and forms of impact that we wish to sustain for the long-term future of our field.","PeriodicalId":45501,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Specialists in Group Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact: Will We Ever Have A Chance?\",\"authors\":\"Kristopher M. Goodrich, David Van Horn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01933922.2022.2129939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As noted by other scholars (i.e., Fernando & Minton, 2011; Hunter et al., 2018), journal-level impact (often referred to as impact factor) is a complex subject and has important meaning for different stakeholders. Journal level impact has been used by different colleges and universities to help inform how they evaluate faculty for formative and summative evaluation processes (Barrio Minton & Fernando, 2011), which can have a tremendous impact on faculty members’ academic careers. Fernando and Barrio Minton have criticized the bias and lack of fairness surrounding this system; however, this might inform the decision where scholars may seek to publish their academic work, either within a certain journal or other, or within a journal within a certain field or not (Hunter et al., 2018). Hunter and colleagues have expressed the potential consequences to professional identity and its relationship to program accreditation, as there is an implied obligation within Council for Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accreditation guides to have Counselor Educators from CACREP-accredited program publish in Counselor Education-related journals. Further, some scholars have used journal metrics as a proxy to explain field differences, arguing the quality of one field in comparison to another based around impact factor differences found for their journals; others have discussed journal-based differences in fields due to number of issues and page counts across different journals (Hunter et al., 2018). Following this line of thinking, Hunter and colleagues have suggested that our field and journals need to consider alternative forms of impact. The politics surrounding journal-level impact is not something that we wish to explore in within this editorial; however, as I (KMG) move toward the end of my term as editor of JSGW, the issues surrounding impact, especially impact as it relates to our own journal (and other journals within our field of Counselor Education) is something that I believe needs further evaluation. Working in tandem with a doctoral student (DJVH), we wish to present a counter-narrative to what has been previously discussed within the field as a rationale for why many of our journals may have not yet received formal impact factors. As two individuals who were both trained in CACREP-accredited masters programs, and who have or are seeking doctoral degrees in CACREP-accredited doctoral programs, we come from within the field and seek a call for attention that we hope will lead to a call to action as we continue our important work in Counselor Education. It is ultimately our argument that the size of journals, the number of pages, or issues within journal volumes do not alone explain the lack of journal-level impact for many of the journals within our fields, as argued by others. Instead, it is our belief that there are actions that we could, and should, take as a field that would not only support us in moving our journals toward formal impact factors; they may also help us in ensuring that the scholarship from our field reflects the rigor and forms of impact that we wish to sustain for the long-term future of our field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Specialists in Group Work\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Specialists in Group Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2022.2129939\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Specialists in Group Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2022.2129939","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
正如其他学者(即Fernando & Minton, 2011;Hunter et al., 2018),期刊层面的影响(通常称为影响因子)是一个复杂的主题,对不同的利益相关者具有重要意义。期刊水平的影响已经被不同的学院和大学用来帮助告知他们如何评估教师的形成性和总结性评估过程(Barrio Minton & Fernando, 2011),这可能对教师的学术生涯产生巨大的影响。费尔南多和巴里奥·明顿批评了围绕这一制度的偏见和缺乏公平性;然而,这可能会为学者们决定在哪里发表他们的学术工作提供信息,无论是在某一期刊上还是其他期刊上,还是在某一领域的期刊上(Hunter et al., 2018)。亨特和他的同事们已经表达了职业身份及其与项目认证关系的潜在后果,因为在咨询和相关教育项目委员会(CACREP)认证指南中有一项隐含的义务,即来自CACREP认证项目的咨询教育工作者在咨询教育相关期刊上发表文章。此外,一些学者使用期刊指标作为解释领域差异的代理,认为一个领域的质量与另一个领域的质量相比是基于其期刊的影响因子差异;其他人则讨论了基于期刊的领域差异,这是由于不同期刊的问题数量和页数(Hunter et al., 2018)。按照这种思路,亨特和他的同事们建议我们的领域和期刊需要考虑其他形式的影响。围绕新闻层面影响的政治不是我们希望在这篇社论中探讨的;然而,随着我(KMG)作为JSGW编辑的任期即将结束,围绕影响的问题,特别是与我们自己的期刊(以及我们咨询师教育领域的其他期刊)相关的影响,我认为需要进一步评估。我们与一名博士生(DJVH)合作,希望对该领域之前讨论的问题提出一个相反的叙述,作为我们的许多期刊可能尚未收到正式影响因子的基本原理。作为两个都在cacrep认证的硕士课程中接受过培训的人,以及已经或正在攻读cacrep认证的博士学位的人,我们来自这个领域,希望能引起人们的关注,我们希望能在继续我们在咨询教育领域的重要工作时,引起人们的行动呼吁。我们最终的论点是,期刊的规模、页数或期刊卷内的问题并不能单独解释我们领域内许多期刊缺乏期刊级影响力的原因,正如其他人所认为的那样。相反,我们相信,作为一个领域,我们可以,也应该采取一些行动,这不仅会支持我们将期刊推向正式影响因子;它们还可以帮助我们确保我们领域的奖学金反映出我们希望为我们领域的长期未来维持的严谨性和影响形式。
As noted by other scholars (i.e., Fernando & Minton, 2011; Hunter et al., 2018), journal-level impact (often referred to as impact factor) is a complex subject and has important meaning for different stakeholders. Journal level impact has been used by different colleges and universities to help inform how they evaluate faculty for formative and summative evaluation processes (Barrio Minton & Fernando, 2011), which can have a tremendous impact on faculty members’ academic careers. Fernando and Barrio Minton have criticized the bias and lack of fairness surrounding this system; however, this might inform the decision where scholars may seek to publish their academic work, either within a certain journal or other, or within a journal within a certain field or not (Hunter et al., 2018). Hunter and colleagues have expressed the potential consequences to professional identity and its relationship to program accreditation, as there is an implied obligation within Council for Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accreditation guides to have Counselor Educators from CACREP-accredited program publish in Counselor Education-related journals. Further, some scholars have used journal metrics as a proxy to explain field differences, arguing the quality of one field in comparison to another based around impact factor differences found for their journals; others have discussed journal-based differences in fields due to number of issues and page counts across different journals (Hunter et al., 2018). Following this line of thinking, Hunter and colleagues have suggested that our field and journals need to consider alternative forms of impact. The politics surrounding journal-level impact is not something that we wish to explore in within this editorial; however, as I (KMG) move toward the end of my term as editor of JSGW, the issues surrounding impact, especially impact as it relates to our own journal (and other journals within our field of Counselor Education) is something that I believe needs further evaluation. Working in tandem with a doctoral student (DJVH), we wish to present a counter-narrative to what has been previously discussed within the field as a rationale for why many of our journals may have not yet received formal impact factors. As two individuals who were both trained in CACREP-accredited masters programs, and who have or are seeking doctoral degrees in CACREP-accredited doctoral programs, we come from within the field and seek a call for attention that we hope will lead to a call to action as we continue our important work in Counselor Education. It is ultimately our argument that the size of journals, the number of pages, or issues within journal volumes do not alone explain the lack of journal-level impact for many of the journals within our fields, as argued by others. Instead, it is our belief that there are actions that we could, and should, take as a field that would not only support us in moving our journals toward formal impact factors; they may also help us in ensuring that the scholarship from our field reflects the rigor and forms of impact that we wish to sustain for the long-term future of our field.