RAINCOAST wants BLACK BEAR HUNTING BAN

[REMINGTON JIM]

Someone always graduates at the bottom of the class.

Those are the people who paste scientific journal reference lists on HBC.

LMFFAO ! now WHO might you be referring too Patty ? RJ

[jassmine]

The thrust of my argument was always about Raincoast and the quality of their work, the ranking of one journal is a distraction and tangential to the important discussion
not a discussion about bibliometrics, a topic that you seem to know nothing about.

Really?

What gets me is the worthlessness of their "academic" work. If you want to see the kind of junk they publish check out "Why men trophy hunt" in Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal).....
Maybe I'll write it up and submit it to Biology Letters for publication--they seem to be willing to pass off anyone's opinion as peer reviewed literature.

Yes, I understand how academic publishing works, and yes, open access is often (not always) a very good thing. Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes. Ultimately it's about reputation, so if people in your field have good feelings about it, fine, but the objective data based on citation data is unimpressive..

(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)

Well it does certainly seem as though you were the one who initially brought up the topic and continued to talk about the topic once I disagreed with your statement that Biology Letters is a low quality journal. However it's higher in quality (by measures you chose, ex. citations per 2 years) to some of the journals that pretty important papers have came out of, such as:

Mclellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2), 218-229.

But maybe their conclusions are incorrect because you do not deem journals like Biology Letters or those worse (i.e. Wildlife Management) as high enough quality.

But do tell me the element I don't seem to understand? Go ahead please.

[180grainer]

That was sarcastic.

Critical thought isn't exclusive to academia, and public education is in qualitative decline.

It's only in decline if you don't see it as indoctrination. It's why Jassmine doesn't articulate her position well in her own words and relies on posting multiple references to support her general statements. Our universities have become socialist cesspools of narrow minded positions that can't tolerate a difference of opinion.

[Surrey Boy]

It's only in decline if you don't see it as indoctrination. It's why Jassmine doesn't articulate her position well in her own words and relies on posting multiple references to support her general statements. Our universities have become socialist cesspools of narrow minded positions that can't tolerate a difference of opinion.

You can tell universities are feminized by how they win arguments by simply being able to argue longer than anyone can keep refuting them. Nagging their way to victory!

[Kill-da-wabbit]

You can tell universities are feminized by how they win arguments by simply being able to argue longer than anyone can keep refuting them. Nagging their way to victory!

Bwwaaahaha hahaha haa LMAOFF!

[Piperdown]

LMFFAO ! now WHO might you be referring too Patty ? RJ

RJ you ole shit disturber , I love it

[TreeStandMan]

Jasmine: I've been trying to move the discussion away from the the issue of the quality of Biology Letters for many posts now. If you want a course in bibliometrics, please go and take one. In the meantime why won't you engage on the substantive issue—the quality of this paper and Raincoast themselves?

Please go back and see my bolded questions that you refuse to touch. You're obfuscating. Why is that?

[Ourea]

Jassmine, I am sure I am not the only one that cant help but notice you have a very skewed agenda with your time and efforts on HBC.

The spirit of HBC is for outdoor minded people to share experience(s), pass on knowledge, support and help others with our sport.
You do not tick any of these boxes as you have none of the above as it relates to hunting and time in the field.
I doubt you even hunt to be all honest.

Zero street cred sister.

If and when your actions and attitude reflect that of an outdoors person, that you support wildlife thru being an active member in clubs and organizations, or working behind the scenes.....well, you will only continue to be an annoyance on this site with absolutely ZERO credibility or respect.

[jassmine]

Please go back and see my bolded questions that you refuse to touch. You're obfuscating. Why is that?

Because you refused to address any of the points I've made, and are now switching the subject/pivoting so that you don't have to defend your opinion that Biology Letters is a bad journal despite it ranking higher than journals where important research is being used and promoted (ex. Journal of Wildlife Management).

So why should I answer a question that has nothing to do with the point you made or my disagreement with. I shouldn't, except for the fact that you hope that it can allow you to paint me in light of some anti-hunter somehow and switch the topic.

You keep on mentioning bibliometrics (in a form of a insult or misrepresenting what I'm saying), but again it is you that initially brought up the subject not me.

If you want a course in bibliometrics, please go and take one.?

previous posts:

Biology Letters (a bottom tier open access journal).....
Maybe I'll write it up and submit it to Biology Letters for publication--they seem to be willing to pass off anyone's opinion as peer reviewed literature.

Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes. Ultimately it's about reputation, so if people in your field have good feelings about it, fine, but the objective data based on citation data is unimpressive..

(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)

So definitely not me that brought it up or continues to use it to insult or demean me.

J, not a discussion about bibliometrics, a topic that you seem to know nothing about. Y

I was simply demonstrating that your belief of Biology Letters being a poor journal based on the metric you chose was not supported or if it was would invalidate important research, for example studies that show the Grizzly hunt is not unsustainable (Mclellan, Journal of Wildlife Management).

[jassmine]

It is you that seems not to know what something is about.
You were hoping to see an analysis and results section in a paper that was an opinion piece published in Biology Letters.

Not true, I've mentioned several weaknesses of this paper, however methodology and analysis are indeed a problem here....

Third, and most important, his hypothesis that "costly signalling model to explain[s] any big-game hunting" isn't ever tested, is barely observational, and entirely unempirical. Put another way: his sample population is full of straw men. Science is based on empirical evidence, not conjecture informed by motivated reasoning.

You clearly did not correctly read the paper or you were not able to understand it, because there was no methodology or analysis section as it was a perspective piece indicated by the journal to be an opinion paper. There was no sample population, or hypothesis testing.

Jassmine: I'm not looking for Methodology and Analysis sections, but I'd like to see the authors of the paper go through the intellectual exercise of have a valid methodology and good analysis. As I've said a number of times now, on their website Raincoast calls this opinion "scientific literature," so what I'm asking of them is not unfair.

So clearly it was you that had a problem understanding the issue at hand, because you believe the methodology and analysis were problems, when in fact there was no analysis or methodology section in the paper at all because it was a perspective piece, a fact which you seem to have missed.