Doty in China - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 23, 2006

RE: Doty in China

Date: Jun 23, 2006

I'll give citations as much credit as the CoB Management Team gave mine on my last annual evaluation.

Date: Jun 23, 2006

OK, so you will just be using the last year as a measure of research productivity. Wouldn't a citation count increase annually if a paper continued to be influential over time? I thought you wanted to go back decades; I misunderstood.

Date: Jun 23, 2006

No, you didn't misunderstand. You're purposefully being obtuse.

Citations have been discounted to almost nothing in the CoB for years. There is a faculty member with a truly seminal paper from the 1970s, but CoB administrators consistently have failed to recognize that value. So, let's forget about citations for now. Let's talk about new work going out and the quality of that work.

The fact that a guy writes one low-level education piece every third or fourth year doesn't make him a scholar.

My analysis may take some time, since only one department in the CoB is proud enough of its research to post it on the website. Why is that?

Date: Jun 23, 2006

I hear your frustration. Instead of resorting to name calling, could you clarify for me that a "truly seminal paper" would be deemed such based on a citation count?

Date: Jun 23, 2006

DISCRETIONary Effort wrote:

I hear your frustration. Instead of resorting to name calling, could you clarify for me that a "truly seminal paper" would be deemed such based on a citation count?

Of course it would. That's why it's so absurd that CoB administrators fail to recognize it. Ask me to make decisions about research productivity and I'll start including quite a bit that Doty and the Gang don't want to count...cites, invited papers, etc. However, including those types of measures makes it too hard to rig the system, which is why they don't count for much now.

Date: Jun 23, 2006

cleanup man wrote:
DISCRETIONary Effort wrote: could you clarify for me that a "truly seminal paper" would be deemed such based on a citation count?

Of course it would.

Thank you.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

I'll get back to you when I can find M&M, A&IS, and TM's publications.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

There is no need to get back to me on anything. I am not in the least interested in what is likely to be a hatchet job on colleagues you referred to as "deadwood" for whom you appear to have little professional respect. Rather, I am interested in what would constitute a "quality-adjusted publication record" and we seem to agree that independent measures such as citation counts would be critical for inclusion. Thank you for a civil exchange and good night.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

DISCRETIONary Effort wrote:

There is no need to get back to me on anything. I am not in the least interested in what is likely to be a hatchet job on colleagues you referred to as "deadwood" for whom you appear to have little professional respect. Rather, I am interested in what would constitute a "quality-adjusted publication record" and we seem to agree that independent measures such as citation counts would be critical for inclusion. Thank you for a civil exchange and good night.

I would think citations would be very important in hiring and promotion/tenure evaluations. However, annual evaluations should be "what have you done over the pass year" period.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

DISCRETIONary Effort wrote:

There is no need to get back to me on anything. I am not in the least interested in what is likely to be a hatchet job on colleagues you referred to as "deadwood" for whom you appear to have little professional respect. Rather, I am interested in what would constitute a "quality-adjusted publication record" and we seem to agree that independent measures such as citation counts would be critical for inclusion. Thank you for a civil exchange and good night.

Why are you so interested in having a meeting of the minds on what constitutes a quality-adjusted publication record, yet don't care for the discussion go further?

Date: Jun 24, 2006

DISCRETIONary Effort isn't interested in any type of dialogue. Typical of the loud-mouthed "elders" in the CoB who talk about research but haven't done any quality research ever, or at least in a long while.

For non-CoB readers, this little tangent centers on the fact that CoB administrators have ignored certain types of research measures (such as high citation rates in good journals) for certain individuals, while allowing low-level journal publications to count as top-notch. The quality of a publication depends on who you are, not on the faculty-approved common journal ranking list.

I'm going forward with my list, and I will report the results on this board. Lack of data will be attributed to faculty being ashamed of their publications or being too lazy to make them available.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

cleanup man wrote:

DISCRETIONary Effort isn't interested in any type of dialogue. Typical of the loud-mouthed "elders" in the CoB who talk about research but haven't done any quality research ever, or at least in a long while.

For non-CoB readers, this little tangent centers on the fact that CoB administrators have ignored certain types of research measures (such as high citation rates in good journals) for certain individuals, while allowing low-level journal publications to count as top-notch. The quality of a publication depends on who you are, not on the faculty-approved common journal ranking list.

I'm going forward with my list, and I will report the results on this board. Lack of data will be attributed to faculty being ashamed of their publications or being too lazy to make them available.

Given the difficult times campus wide, it is inappropriate for one group of faculty to use this list to bash another group of faculty. I hope the moderator sees the wisdom of my assertion.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

I probably will not matter, Solidarity. I'm told usmpride.com is about to unleash the hounds anyway.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

Solidarity wrote:

Given the difficult times campus wide, it is inappropriate for one group of faculty to use this list to bash another group of faculty. I hope the moderator sees the wisdom of my assertion.

Unless you are comparing yourself to a department with a chair that everyone dislikes, like CISE.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

Solidarity wrote:

Given the difficult times campus wide, it is inappropriate for one group of faculty to use this list to bash another group of faculty. I hope the moderator sees the wisdom of my assertion.

I guess, given the difficult times campus wide, we should all just drop any research expectations. No need for tenure votes...just let everyone who sticks around for 6 years pass without opposition. I'm sure that fits in neatly with accrediting agencies' standards.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

cleanup man wrote:

...I'll go look on the CoB page at usm.edu.

...I'm going forward with my list, and I will report the results on this board. Lack of data will be attributed to faculty being ashamed of their publications or being too lazy to make them available.

Dude, you really going to count on web pages being up-to-date? Is there not a database that you can search by author? Looks like you are the lazy one.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

cleanup man wrote:

I guess, given the difficult times campus wide, we should all just drop any research expectations. No need for tenure votes...just let everyone who sticks around for 6 years pass without opposition. I'm sure that fits in neatly with accrediting agencies' standards.

That takes the non sequitur of the month award. Bashing specific faculty members on a public message board would appear to be unrelated to university standards for promotion and tenure. Perhaps logic is not a virtue in the COB.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

It didn't fit into P-R-I-D-E, or Doty's Book of Virtues (for everyone but he and his team).

Back to China, does anyone know if family members accompanied the Group-of-2 to Beijing for the week?

Date: Jun 24, 2006

It seems that everyone who is anyone is going to China these days. China is the new black! USM should be proud to have a representative there.

Date: Jun 24, 2006

According to Doty's first crack at merit raises two years ago the top professors in the CoB are (alphabetically) Carter, Hsieh, Jordan, Klinedinst and Nissan.

Date: Jun 25, 2006

This thread is truly interesting. Here's what I have learned about the CoB so far:

1. Apparently CoB Dean Doty is currently in China.
2. Apparently the trip to China is couched as a conference trip -- international travel to an out of area meeting with designs on influencing the hiring process for a department that is outside his specialty.
3. There are more representatives from USM at this conference than from LSU, U of Mississippi, Mississippi State, U of Alabama, and Auburn combined.
4. Some people in the CoB are afraid to have their research records publicized for fear that someone might use these research records against them. [I'm not too sure why, unless there have been inequitable steps taken by administration that rewards those with clearly inferior research productivity]
5. When threatened with posting of research records, some posters on this thread attempt to change the subject.
6. The Doty trip to China cost at least $5,000, money that could have been used to support other programs in the CoB.