Publishing and impact criteria, and their bearing on Translation Studies: In search of comparability

Abstract

This paper questions the current concept of quality as used in research assessment rankings and peer review, with special reference to the link often established between impact and the way this impact is measured in the form of citation counting. Taking translation studies as a case study, we will offer a two-level approach to reveal both the macro- and micro-level biases that exist in this regard. We will first review three key aspects related to the idea of the quality of publications, namely peer review, journal indexing, and journal impact factor. We will then pinpoint some of the main macro-level problems regarding current practices and criteria as applied to translation studies, such as Thomson Reuters World of Science's journal coverage, citation patterns, and publication format. Next we will provide a micro-textual and practical perspective, focusing on citation counts and suggesting a series of corrective measures to increase comparability.