Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »

Chris › Likes

Cameron Neylon
RT @memotypic: Policies on research data in UK institutions - do you have one to share? http://www.dcc.ac.uk/news... via @digitalcuration
Cameron Neylon
This is an interesting point from Kent Anderson at The Scholarly Kitchen... - http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011...
"Maybe one strength we’ve been overlooking is that traditional peer-review forces smart people to collaborate. Post-publication review doesn’t seem positioned to harness this advantage." - Cameron Neylon from Bookmarklet
The article just goes to show yet again (as if anybody needed yet more evidence) the guy has no idea what scientific publishing is all about: "Perhaps the success of traditional peer-review is only partially about rigor or a “high bar,” with a good portion of the value emanating from a tight collaborative process for those papers deemed of sufficient interest to undergo collaborative... more... - Björn Brembs
@Cameron: I've never thought post-publication review would replace traditional peer-review - what did you find interesting about the point you quoted? - Björn Brembs
Well I think post publication peer review has to replace traditional peer review or we may as well give up. The quote was an interesting point to me about a potential barrier to this that might be worth looking at overcoming. - Cameron Neylon
And the other point I'd make is that many (indeed most) scientists believe that peer review does provide rigor and "high bars". A survey said so.... - Cameron Neylon
Do you have a link for the survey? Methinks the devil might lie in the formulation of the question there :-) But why replace or give up? It is much rarer that I voluntarily read a paper so thoroughly as when I'm assigned to review it. I imagine that too many papers would go down completely unread without traditional peer-review, which could've become blockbusters if only someone had been forced to fight their way through them... - Björn Brembs
But equally I think too much time is spent doing peer review that could have been spent doing blockbuster work :-) Don't have a link to hand but there are lots of surveys that show researchers support for peer review based on their belief that it checks for technical correctness and helps them decide what to read. Actually its just rare that I read a paper these days to be honest.... - Cameron Neylon
Oh, so the surveys don't say that people think peer-review what should go into which journal? I'm a little confused: it reads like they say what I say: peer-review helps making manuscripts better. Anyway, some blockbuster work may not be recognizable as such before peer-review? Personally, peer-review is good for me for two reasons: 1. My publications have mostly gotten better in my eyes which makes me feel more comfortable. 2. Like journal club it forces me to read papers more critically than usual. - Björn Brembs
Not sure if that was shared here before, but here's a Jeff Shrager's paper assessing how various levels of pre-publication review might affect the rate of scientific progress - http://www.plosone.org/article... Quote from discussion: "Too strict of a review requirement (represented here by the HMSDCALE parameter) can prevent sharing of valid treatments, but too weak of a requirement drowns good results in a sea of bad treatments." - Pawel Szczesny
Not clear without reading the paper (which I don't have time to do now) -- what does he mean by "strict"? Are we talking Glamor Mag version of strict (= "predicted impact" nonsense), or PLoS ONE version of strict (= scientific rigor)? - Bill Hooker
OK, I skimmed the Methods -- "strict" means publish only if patient improves monotonically over sequential treatments. I think the model is too simple to support, well, anything at all. - Bill Hooker
Will try again: I don't have the right references to hand and don't have time to check them today (I generally discount all surveys now) but basically if you ask researchers: "Does peer review guarantee accuracy" you get strong support (dissenters mostly quibbling about "guarantee"), "Is peer review good at determining importance", weak but generally majority support, much stronger... more... - Cameron Neylon
But Bjoern, the problem with your "it works for me argument" is that there is an absolute 1to1 correspondence with the most widely deployed arguments for homeopathy, reiki, religion....whatever...we need to do better and have some _real_ evidence for this. - Cameron Neylon
I agree, Cameron, that I may be an exception, of course! No disagreement from me there! - Björn Brembs
You might just run into problems quantifying 'my paper got better', but technical problems are there to be solved :-) - Björn Brembs
well, here's my questions: how do "smart people" cooperate unless there is a certain promise of some journal brand glitter for their working hours spent on peer review? which recognition mechanisms and incentives would do the trick in post-publication peer review? - Claudia Koltzenburg
Claudia, that's exactly the question that I thought was interesting. What kinds of motivation are there for people to collaborate around improving papers that aren't their own or doesn't already fit into some system they understand. - Cameron Neylon
Björn, the problem is not that your an exception, you're close to average but lots of anecdotes from people who participate and use a system is not evidence that the system works. Not for peer review and not for homeopathy. I submit that it is plausible that exactly the same kind of self delusion could be at work. That needs to be disproved, which is hard. Matt, that's an excellent... more... - Cameron Neylon
Reviewers constantly complain that we're not British, so now most of manuscripts from my department are sent to a professional editor, which corrects grammar, clarifies structure and adds suggestions on scientific aspects of a paper. It costs $500, takes two days and is surprisingly close to changes I make when sending a manuscript for typical academic review. I wonder if that's the main thing that would come out of mining BMC (manuscripts have improved readability). - Pawel Szczesny
Sorry, you're absolutely right, Cameron. What I didn't spell out was that I wasn't claiming that I might be the exception that I felt peer-review was worthwhile. I meant I was the exception where peer-review objectively excluded alternative explanations: in contrast to 'my symptoms went away', if peer-review suggests experiments which exclude alternative explanations for our phenomena,... more... - Björn Brembs
I'm not entirely sure you can exclude a control treatment. Or at least a different treatment eg sending the paper out for general review as a preprint could have identified the same benefit. But I'll accept that if the control were pre-pub review vs no review this is a single positive outcome identified. Now is that worth the $2B that we spend? I'll also position it against an anecdote of my own where making a referee happy made the paper harder to read... :-) - Cameron Neylon
That's exactly what I meant: I might be an exception, or at least these effects might be drowned out by less positive effects of peer-review. Sorry for not being clearer - actually, your review helped me be clearer :-) Does that count as evidence? :-) - Björn Brembs
But it was post publication! :-) - Cameron Neylon
http://ff.im/p5RSJ "editing" in wiki format open peer review - Claudia Koltzenburg
Cameron Neylon
Hoist by my own petard: How to reduce your impact with restrictive licences - http://cameronneylon.net/blog...
I was honoured to talk at the symposium to celebrate Peter Murray-Rusts' work. I didn't want to give the usual kind of talk to this audience. I wanted to focus on what I think are the big risks and opportunities for the research community and why I believe that a focus on maximising research impact might be a way to bring the community together in a positive way. However I made my own point by inadvertently putting up a permissions slide that prohibited livestreaming, live blogging, and recording. By using a restrictive licence I very effectively reduced the potential impact of my talk about impact. The message is pretty clear. If you want to make a difference, use an open licence and give people permission to re-use your work. If you want to make no impact at all then restrictive licences are a great way to achieve that. - Cameron Neylon
How interesting, Cameron. Thanks for sharing the story. Kudos to everyone for respecting your (inadvertent) wishes. Curious: you have that slide in some other slidedeck on purpose? Is it for when you are talking about institution-specific issues internally, or ??. Not judging, I'm interested. - Heather Piwowar
Great story, Cameron. - Michael Nielsen
@Heather the slidedeck has two slides, one for people like me and one for people that didn't want liveblogging etc If I had a brain they'd be in the opposite order (see under "nudging") but that was just the way I originally did it... - Cameron Neylon
Gotcha. Thanks! - Heather Piwowar
What Neil said -- I'd have heckled you! (If I'd noticed.) - Bill Hooker
Thing was, Cameron started off by discussing his early career. I assumed that he was talking about issues he didn't want broadcast around the world (I couldn't tell if the video was streaming or not). Either that, I thought, or else he was going to make a point at the end of the talk about how no-one can prevent live discussion of talks. - Noel O'Boyle
Cameron Neylon
Piwowar
oops. Thought the entry box was the search box....more coffee before proceeding I think... - Cameron Neylon from Android
And now it's going to appear in the "best of day" section/feed. :) - Pawel Szczesny
Its shifting between web and mobile interface that did it. That and a 5am start to get to Edinburgh. Research Libraries UK meeting today and tomorrow. Now go and give the item I was trying to find some love! (the one on trying to track data use etc) - Cameron Neylon
Neylon. Good morning :) - Heather Piwowar
Michael, there is no need to bring cookbooks into this </extremely-obscure-jokes> - Cameron Neylon
Whoosh! (The sound of an extremely-obscure-joke going over my head...) - Michael Nielsen
You stalking Heather now :) - Deepak Singh
Michael, clue: Stephanie Alexander....Oh and Blackadder. Obviously... - Cameron Neylon
Man. Clearly no-one else around here was a Blackadder watcher and foodie living in Australia in the mid to late 90s... - Cameron Neylon
Kate short for Bob - I remember Cameron. - Andrew Lang
I should ask Jen - she loved both Blackadder and Stephanie Alexander. I'm a Blackadder fan, but not much of a cook... - Michael Nielsen
Cameron Neylon
RT @mary_carmichael: Reading today: Google and decline of peer review http://theaporetic.com/?p=701; @cshirky on how complexity begets collapse http://www.shirky.com/weblog...
'Mummi' Thorisson
Fwd: [Big News!] NIH to use ORCID as Author Identifier. (via @orcid_org) - http://www.weopenid.org/press-r... (via http://friendfeed.com/mrgunn...)
So that is essentially the tipping point? - Chris from twhirl
The question is over whether funders "use" as opposed to just contributing to the organization. NIH is a big thing, particularly if this means PubMed uses ORCID but would be much more interesting if they're also using it for grant tracking and processing. If a big UK funder or DFG (or perhaps MPI) also adopts ORCID as an identifier for their systems then I'd be calling a tipping point...NIH/MRC/DFG would be a pretty compelling case... - Cameron Neylon
Went to a UK-PMC workshop recently where this issue came up with regards to both author and grant tracking disambiguation. The UK-PMC representative did not seem to be aware of ORCID, with user identity entirely based on email address...! - Richard Badge
You see for me, now is the time to be pushing this stuff to UK RCs as an efficiency measure (along with DOIs and the whole re-use agenda) :) - Chris from twhirl
Absolutely - the time is right, although RCs are distinctly distracted. I need to hassle you about the metrics workshop incidentally where hopefully we can make some of those connections. - Cameron Neylon
The Wellcome Trust, the British Library and now also Cancer Research UK are ORCID participants - three organizations behind UK Pubmed Central. I hope that there is a discussion about UK PubMed Central at the next ORCID participants meeting November 18 in London (to take place at the Wellcome Trust). - Martin Fenner
@Martin, well done! ORCID++ - Egon Willighagen
Egon, expect more ORCID news for researchers Wednesday next week ;). - Martin Fenner
Daniel Lemire
Your Value Is in Deciding What's Important, Not Answering Email [Quotables] - http://lifehacker.com/5643751...
Which makes my value somewhat low today... - Cameron Neylon
ROFL(ish). Add to the list Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook, etc. The Forty Thieves of time... I was so gonna do some XSLT today. - Chris
Cesar Sanchez
Dr. Rous’s Prize-Winning Chicken: unfashionable research opened the way to great discoveries in human health & biology - http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaech...
Dr. Rous’s Prize-Winning Chicken: unfashionable research opened the way to great discoveries in human health & biology
"If one were to apply contemporary principles of evaluation to the work of Peyton Rous in his time and without the benefit of hindsight, this work would certainly be assigned a low priority, not fundable, and probably also not publishable in the trendsetting journals that today alone can confer recognition and prestige. Even in 1966, the year of the [Nobel] prize, it was impossible to guess at the full significance of the Rous sarcoma virus for human medicine and biology…The urgent lesson from the Rous experience, then, should be that it is the quality of the science that counts, not its compliance with a fashionable trend and not its perceived future value, which cannot be predicted." Peter K. Vogt (1996. The FASEB Journal 10:1559-1562.) - Cesar Sanchez from Bookmarklet
Great blog post - have used the "central dogma" handrawn diagram from Crick's notebook (with RNA > DNA annotation) in teaching for some years- always good to see students react to science "gods" revising their hypotheses! - Richard Badge from iPhone
Daniel Mietchen
Scientific findings in a digital world: What is the genuine article? at the British Library on 22nd July (18.00 - 20.30) - http://network.nature.com/groups...
"Looking Good on Paper The gold standard of the peer-reviewed scientific paper has barely changed in form since its inception over 300 years ago. However, with more and more scientists communicating research findings in digital format in many different ways does the notion of the scientific ‘article’ itself remain relevant? Is the traditional research paper still the optimal format for the dissemination of the outputs of scientific research? If not, what are the alternatives? Video Killed the Methods Section More and more scientific findings are ‘born digital’. The traditional format of research article is being transformed into a multi-media digital object with linked content, video, audio, datasets and reader annotation. This raises new possibilities and challenges. How should these newer types of content be peer reviewed? Are researchers really able to make the most of them? Does a link to a dataset or image always provide sufficient context to enable informed re-use or validation?... more... - Daniel Mietchen from Bookmarklet
Anybody planning on going there? They do not foresee live streaming but would allow microblogging. - Daniel Mietchen
I'm not sure that I can go - its a long (and expensive) detour on the way home... - Cameron Neylon from twhirl
Can't help you with the "long" part but I'm working on the "expensive" one. - Daniel Mietchen
Sounds like a great discussion! Sadly it is too far away for me. Does anyone know what the format is? It says that John Wilbanks will introduce the topic but doesn't say how the discussion will proceed from there. - Lisa Green
Up to five people who commit to microblogging from the event will have free entry. Please sign up here or let me know via email. - Daniel Mietchen
Looking like I might be able to make it after all. Woot! - Cameron Neylon from twhirl
Nice to see that you plan to go there, Fiona and Cameron! - Daniel Mietchen
The format is a 20 min introduction by John Wilbanks, followed by a discussion (open to the floor for questions and comments. - Karen Walshe
There is now a special FriendFeed room for the British Library's TalkScience series: http://friendfeed.com/british... . - Daniel Mietchen
Reminder: It's tomorrow. FF: http://friendfeed.com/british... . Twitter: #BLTS . - Daniel Mietchen
Microbloggers, please identify yourself at the registration. - Daniel Mietchen
Hi there, Fiona - please use http://friendfeed.com/british... or (at Twitter) #BLTS . - Daniel Mietchen
Noah Gray
PLoS ONE: Does Publication in Top-Tier Journals Affect Reviewer Behavior? - http://www.plosone.org/article...
Cool! - Björn Brembs
Pulling the ladder up? - Chris from twhirl
This study could have been so much better. Even a simple normalization to the number of reviews done for hi- vs. lo-impact journals as it relates to rej rate would have made this more interesting (although still unsurprising)... - Noah Gray from iPhone
Bill Hooker
Kind of a lesson in irony... - Chris from twhirl
It's unfortunate that the other letters on this same topic, in this same issue of Science, aren't OA. - Jim Till
Noah Gray
New Nature editorial: How to stop blogging - "Organizers have only two options for their meetings: open or closed." - http://www.nature.com/nature...
Nice to see Nature weighing in on this. I think this is the key point: "Any meeting to which anyone can register is fair game for all available communications technologies — and any rules that cannot be policed will be ignored anyway." - Joe Bonner
I disagree. It is easy to set up a filter to catch blogging at real time, (see the CSHL incident) so registrants can be made aware of a no-blog policy, and sanctions that will follow breaking that policy. Also, meetings are not necessarily "all closed" and "all open" -- GRC meetings for example select their attendees. IMHO: large meeting with press etc. have no expectation of privacy... more... - Iddo Friedberg
Just had a similar conversation about phud theses -- you could technically always get them but really they were not listed and difficult to get copies of, so there was this sort of limbo let's-not-think-too-hard-about-this approach. Afaik very few meetings ever feature anything really new -- it's more 'what we were doing last year'. Any electronic restrictions seem entirely circumventable through the use of pencil and paper anyway..? - Chris from twhirl
@Neil Saunders - agreed! - Allyson Lister
I lost track of what was being debated here. It seems that we are all in agreement RE: meetings should just be "Open or Closed". Which is what the editorial is saying. The real debate is whether they *should* be open or closed. And this will differ from field to field. An interesting caveat suggesting how openness (although theoretically a good thing) can lead to an easy infiltration of the wrong kind of influence is being made here: http://ff.im/50myz - Noah Gray
There's also a conversation going on at FF Science Online room about this same editorial.http://ff.im/4Y5Ts I was just going to make Noah's point when his response came in while I was writing - seems to me that Iddo and Neil's comments are along same lines as what the editorial is saying. - Maxine
Shirley Wu
The All Results Journals - "Because all your results are good results" - http://arjournals.com/ojs...
Just got an email from them to be on the SAB for the Biology journal. Do they typically ask people without Ph.D.s (yet)? I like the concept but have concerns about legitimacy, etc... - Shirley Wu
If it were me, it would boil down to who else is on the SAB, and could I see myself publishing there. If it's not something I'd normally want to be associated with, then I don't think the cool title is worth it. my two cents... - Andrew Su
Shirley: erm... no, that doesn't sound typical. looking at the few members of the board who have joined up and are displayed on the site, they look to be all prof or assoc prof level (no names i recognise, but...), which seems pretty standard... - Joe Dunckley
It actually looks pretty good to me -- OJS, LOCKSS, CC-BY and a founding concept (publish all data) that I agree with. It's a definite plus in my book if they don't care about formal degrees and just want to get the best people. I'd like to know more about the business model/support framework, esp since there's no mention of author-side charges. I've registered as a reader/potential author/available reviewer. - Bill Hooker
If I could double-like this, I would. - Chris Miller
Let us know what you find out, Shirley. I'm a grad student who wouldn't mind reviewing either, if it's kosher. - Chris Miller
I replied with some questions, we'll see what they say - Shirley Wu
Quoting Feynman: "If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results." [http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti...] - Eric Jain
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My main concern is that it is a lot of work to write a paper based on failed experiments and I don't know how many researchers would be willing to do that. I don't have a problem with sharing my failed results from within my lab notebook, which I have to maintain anyway. But if scientists do contribute I think it is fantastic. - Jean-Claude Bradley
Key questions are business model and what they are offering beyond what is already available. Also not confidence inspiring that two of the web pages provides for SAB members seem to lead to dead ends which don't have their name listed. Happy to give benefit of the doubt but presentation of these things is important. - Cameron Neylon
@Jean-Claude: I see two kinds of papers ending up in these journals: 1, "this didn't work" papers reporting pretty much only failed expts; and 2, regular papers that simply include extra information on the stuff that failed, as well as the stuff that didn't. Even when the failed stuff is useful information, trad. journals usually tell you to leave it out. So this model seems to be a sort of compromise between ONS and normal science -- a "gateway drug" for ONS, perhaps? - Bill Hooker
@Bill: A bit of an aside, I'm currently reviewing a paper for Neuropharmacology, a journal which is a tad out of my usual reading. Scanning the author instructions, I was struck by this line:Results. The results should be fully illustrated. Negative findings should also be noted to avoid unnecessary replication by others. - NatBlair
Bill - I appreciate the motivation and the utility if they get submissions - I am just wondering if they can get enough people to put in the effort. It will be interesting information about the scientific community either way. - Jean-Claude Bradley
Haven't heard back from them yet. The morning after I sent my response with questions, however, I got a verbatim copy of their original email sent to me again by the same person. So I don't know what's going on but like Cameron said, not exactly confidence inspiring - Shirley Wu
Does anyone have an opinion on the Journal of Negative Results? - Mr. Gunn
@Jean-Claude - I think your concern is well founded. We get good feedback for JNR-EEB (http://www.jnr-eeb.org/index...), but few submissions. - Bob O'Hara
I got a reply from the section editor that contacted me. They do want Ph.D. scientists, and he didn't know I was still a graduate student (not that hard to click on the "about me" page of my blog, especially if you mention that you've seen my blog and that's why you're contacting me...). Anyway, the other things he mentioned were that there are no author fees (in addition to no access fees), and everything is done in a volunteer fashion because the people involved want to improve science. - Shirley Wu
I'd still be concerned about whether it's possible to sustain high quality without a business model but then again, that's what this open stuff is all about, right? So it would be great if it worked long enough to get something behind it to maintain it. Of course, J-C's concern is also a big one - who will write and submit papers to it? - Shirley Wu
I'd be very worried - getting papers is a big enough problem - but to do it with no business model just isn't sustainable. The business model can be volunteer but then you've got to explicitly worry about how to support and retain your volunteers. But in general I think I'm coming to JC's point. No-one has the time to write full papers on material that isn't up to the grade for existing journals - I don't think they are going to start just because the journals are there. The barrier has to be much lower. - Cameron Neylon
People who start writing their papers before doing the actual work and keep them in sync with the latest progress should be glad to be able to submit them somewhere (even if a few more days of effort are required to clean up the paper and answer reviewer questions etc)? This approach also seems more effective than spending weeks after the fact going through unreadable lab notebooks and... more... - Eric Jain
Which one of the two Eric? I think the latter is more common...but even with a good record the hassle of going through a peer review process is a big disincentive - Cameron Neylon
Kind of journal of negative data. More likely to fail, or at least what people claim as "all results" will be the tip of iceberg. - Dean Johns
"They do want Ph.D. scientists" -- that grates my cheese. Suppose you read Shirley's blog and think "smart person, want her on board my project" -- well, what has changed when you find out she's a grad student? This feeble reliance on a piece of paper is why universities are less and less focused on actual education, and more and more on certification -- a product, bought and sold. [/rant] - Bill Hooker
I certainly agree with you, Bill, but I think there was some validity to what they said; they went on to ask me what my plans were after graduating, whether i was going to remain in the sciences. I would assume that they wouldn't be recruiting folks with Ph.D.s in mol bio that were now working as management consultants on wall street, for example. But they didn't exactly do a great job of vetting if they didn't know I was still a student. - Shirley Wu
@Cam: I think this is basically another "journal of negative results", not so much about material that isn't up to scratch. Eric's comment about people who keep notes in sync with benchwork makes me think that journals that are willing to take negative results are likely to be a boon to anyone who keeps an open or semi-open notebook. (I disagree that peer review is a hassle or a disincentive. Sure, some reviewers are jerks, but overall the process is fun.) - Bill Hooker
I've never looked at the journal of negative results. But it strikes me as quite weird to think about peer-reviewed negative results. I think it's sufficient to just publish your notebook and an informal summary ("we were hoping this would happen, but instead this happened and we don't feel like publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal. Hope these results are helpful!") It's tough to see what peer-review would add w/o asking the researchers to do extra experiments? - Steve Koch
I'm also unclear on whether there is a definition of "negative result." Does the term originate from pharma stuff? I.e., drugs that didn't work? In other fields is "negative result" a synonym for "less-interesting result?" That's sort of what I was thinking and why peer review would seem weird. - Steve Koch
Steve, I think there does need to be some degree or review, or they could end up with a bunch of "Bigfoot was not discovered in Alaska" kinds of submissions. Negative, in the sense of isn't something that will support a grant application, is how I imagine it to be used. - Mr. Gunn
Mr. Gunn, yeah I agree with that. I was really saying I don't see the point of having a journal like that. It seems like a waste of peer-review resources. Self-publishing seems to make more sense to me...but I'm probably not thinking about the right examples of negative results. - Steve Koch
What the journal adds over self-publishing is editing, review, and discovery. Pretty much the same as other journals. I see what you mean about a waste of resources, though. Some people consider Friendfeed to be a waste of resources, too, so there's that. - Mr. Gunn
This is all fascinating. Mr. Gunn says, "What the journal adds over self-publishing is editing, review, and discovery. Pretty much the same as other journals..." But it is the same as other journals? This one would be specifically devoted to secondary findings—that would set it apart, wouldn’t it? If this journal were well run (which doesn’t seem to be the case, based on Shirley’s... more... - Hope Leman
Hope, my comments were directed towards Steve's question of what value publishing negative results in a journal would have over simply self-publishing them. Of course the journal would be set apart from others in terms of content. - Mr. Gunn
I can't make much comment about how organized they are other than that they didn't know I wasn't a Ph.D. despite having been to my blog. Even if they do have a committed and organized core of people, the bigger concern is whether they can sustain a purely volunteer effort. If they can't, they need an actual business model, and the arguments here (and elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/c2b3xm) are of the mind that a full-fledged journal of negative results isn't cost effective. - Shirley Wu
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Gunn. Thank you for the link to Cameron's post on the topic. That is an outstanding, asute bit of analysis. - Hope Leman
Another possible use for the open journal system model would be using it for well-done student publication -- another venue of practice before hitting the bigger journals -- individual schools/labs could put OJS to use, students learn not simply to write for publication but also how to act as reviewers -- provides a neat continuing reinforcement of how to read science (stats, design, etc) -- basically a more finished open notebook product -- also useful for initiating new people into the lab - Mickey Schafer
Hey all -- I got an email invite from All Results Journal:Physics today for the scientific advisory board. I reread my comments above and still agree with my own skepticism. On the other hand, wouldn't mind supporting it to see if it can fly. Did any of you end up getting invovled? Jean-Claude, I see your name on the SAB for ARJ:Chem ... any opinions? - Steve Koch
(As an aside: is this thread sufficiently public that the majority of reasonable people wouldn't mind if I linked it to the editor who sent me the invite? I think definitely yes, but given the hoopla that ensued several weeks ago, figured I'd ask first.) - Steve Koch
I'm still skeptical - I don't see evidence of awareness of the magnitude of the job they're taking on. But then anything that starts from the assumption "publication should basically be free" sets my alarm bells ringing. Happy to see this made public but then I would be I guess :-) - Cameron Neylon
It'd be good if it did take a role as a dumpster for drug research -- stuff failing at any stage might be usefull from discovery on. - Chris from twhirl
Pity is that it's not what I thought at first, which is a journal that publishes just data sets with structured annotation (rather than a full paper being needed, shortcutting the idea of the paper-writing robot) to really get people to clear out their lockers. Just a tab-format form answering the kinds of questions listed in projects linked to by MBBI (ref.... more... - Chris from twhirl
Call it ' Kudos Convertors -- "Free you data. Boost your citations*." ' [* Subject to funders counting it]. How about some kind of data copyright statement while we're at it, to assist with enforcement. - Chris from twhirl
Yeah, I agree, Chris. It'd be much better w/o need for formal paper and "rigorous peer review" as they state now. Editorial or peer review should just make sure that necessary info has been included. Wonder if SAB members can change any of these decisions before they go "live?" - Steve Koch
Other ways to read this feed:Feed readerFacebook