Source author record

Jerome K. Vanclay

Jerome K. Vanclay appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Digital Libraries Populations and Evolution Quantitative Methods

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

3topics

1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2014arXiv

Planning horizons and end conditions for sustained yield studies in continuous cover forests

The contemporary forestry preoccupation with non-declining even-flow during yield simulations detracts from more important questions about the constraints that should bind the end of a simulation. Whilst long simulations help to convey a sense of sustainability, they are inferior to stronger indicators such as the optimal state and binding conditions at the end of a simulation. Rigorous definitions of sustainability that constrain the terminal state should allow flexibility in the planning horizon and relaxation of non-declining even-flow, allowing both greater economic efficiency and better environmental outcomes. Suitable definitions cannot be divorced from forest type and management objectives, but should embrace concepts that ensure the anticipated value of the next harvest, the continuity of growing stock, and in the case of uneven-aged management, the adequacy of regeneration.

preprint2012arXiv

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.

preprint2012arXiv

Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: A critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative

Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) is an attempt by the Australian Research Council to rate Australian universities on a 5-point scale within 180 Fields of Research using metrics and peer evaluation by an evaluation committee. Some of the bibliometric data contributing to this ranking suffer statistical issues associated with skewed distributions. Other data are standardised year-by-year, placing undue emphasis on the most recent publications which may not yet have reliable citation patterns. The bibliometric data offered to the evaluation committees is extensive, but lacks effective syntheses such as the h-index and its variants. The indirect H2 index is objective, can be computed automatically and efficiently, is resistant to manipulation, and a good indicator of impact to assist the ERA evaluation committees and to similar evaluations internationally.

preprint2010arXiv

An evaluation of the Australian Research Council's journal ranking

As part of its program of 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA), the Australian Research Council ranked journals into four categories (A*, A, B, C) in preparation for their performance evaluation of Australian universities. The ranking is important because it likely to have a major impact on publication choices and research dissemination in Australia. The ranking is problematic because it is evident that some disciplines have been treated very differently than others. This paper reveals weaknesses in the ERA journal ranking and highlights the poor correlation between ERA rankings and other acknowledged metrics of journal standing. It highlights the need for a reasonable representation of journals ranked as A* in each scientific discipline.