Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »
Michael Nielsen
Euan Adie: Who comments on scientific papers - and why? - http://blogs.nature.com/wp...
A breakdown of data from the BioMedCentral commenting system. - Michael Nielsen
My own take: there is a gap in the market for an open scientific comment syndication standard, much like RSS, that will enable third parties to build aggregation sites (like Technorati). Such aggregation sites will eventually drive adoption by scientists... - Michael Nielsen
I want to know more about the "crazies" - one can't call 2% of the comments crazy and then not explain. Teez. - Jere
... (continuing my last comment) I don't think any individual publisher should attempt this; other publishers will be reluctant to adopt, and are more likely to build their own "standards". But Nature / BMC / PLoS ONE (for example) could jointly come up with a syndication standard, and then encourage third parties to build aggregation services around it. - Michael Nielsen
I agree, Michael, with the idea that the major STM publishers could drive development in this direction and I will bring it to the attention of our NFAIS membership as a possibility. - Jill O'Neill
Ah, now I know what that mysterious date format data dump was. - Richard Akerman
@Richard Yeah, BMC seem to be a Windows shop. ;) @Michael Yeah, true. I don't think it should be a new standard, though. Atom pub, maybe, or even just plain old RSS for read-only stuff would be a good start. PLoS are working on a comments API now. - Euan
Euan - one of the old standards might work. It'll mean that aggegrators need to add journals by hand, though, which is not ideal. - Michael Nielsen
@Jere In this case crazy == anybody who cites themselves five or six times in a two paragraph comment. Though the crazies % is quite large there were actually only two different, prolific comment authors involved. - Euan
Incidentally, Euan, thanks for making your analysis public - it's very informative. - Michael Nielsen
BTW, Euan, why you divide 732 by 379.12 when there's 37916 papers published? Or why these four papers don't count? (it doesn't change the meaning, I'm just curious). - Pawel Szczesny
@Pawel that's, uh, a special test to see how closely FF commenters pay attention to details in blog posts. ;) Fixed. - Euan
Euan, I guess I passed :) - Pawel Szczesny
Thanks for clarifying "crazy" - wish I could cite myself six times in this comment, but alas ... I'm not so prolific. - Jere
(I also left this comment on the blog entry)-- I'd love to see whether comments on journals follow the general 90-9-1 rule of user participation... - Hilary
I totally agree with Michael. Not only that there should be common standards the information about the articles (number of comments, ratings, trackbacks, hits and downloads) has to be made available in order for other people to test them. The more information the publishers make available the easier it will be to get academic groups that work on e-learning, ontology development, and related subjects to complement the R&D under way inside the publishers. - Pedro Beltrao