Comments on: The Future of Publishing? Trust and Curation, Says the Founder of Craigslist http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/ What's Hot & What's Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:04:39 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Some Memorable Dishes from the Kitchen in 2009 « The Scholarly Kitchen http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-6181 Some Memorable Dishes from the Kitchen in 2009 « The Scholarly Kitchen Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:16:17 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-6181 [...] The Future of Publishing? Trust and Curation, Says the Founder of Craigslist [...] [...] The Future of Publishing? Trust and Curation, Says the Founder of Craigslist [...]

]]> By: What’s the Curation Algorithm, Kenneth? | Guy LeCharles Gonzalez http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5527 What’s the Curation Algorithm, Kenneth? | Guy LeCharles Gonzalez Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:32:15 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5527 [...] –Kent Anderson, The Scholarly Kitchen [...] [...] –Kent Anderson, The Scholarly Kitchen [...]

]]> By: Mark Moran http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5347 Mark Moran Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:41:45 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5347 Curation is, and for the foreseeable future will be, the only way to make sense of the massive trove of information, and disinformation, on the Internet. At findingDulcinea, we own the URL “CuratorOfTheInternet,” because we have long seen the need for someone to play this role. Internet users want to view content from a broad array of sources, and they want someone to put it in context for them to help them make sense of it all. Search engines have made us stupid, by causing us to skim across the surface of the Web without ever fully understanding anything we read; curators are the antidote. Curation is, and for the foreseeable future will be, the only way to make sense of the massive trove of information, and disinformation, on the Internet. At findingDulcinea, we own the URL “CuratorOfTheInternet,” because we have long seen the need for someone to play this role. Internet users want to view content from a broad array of sources, and they want someone to put it in context for them to help them make sense of it all. Search engines have made us stupid, by causing us to skim across the surface of the Web without ever fully understanding anything we read; curators are the antidote.

]]> By: Will the Writing Revolution Beget a Social Revolution? « The Scholarly Kitchen http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5322 Will the Writing Revolution Beget a Social Revolution? « The Scholarly Kitchen Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:25:33 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5322 [...] It’s a reminder that publishers share their infrastructure with an audience that is also publishing; that power equations are shifting dramatically between providers and consumers; and that trust and curation will be vital to success. [...] [...] It’s a reminder that publishers share their infrastructure with an audience that is also publishing; that power equations are shifting dramatically between providers and consumers; and that trust and curation will be vital to success. [...]

]]> By: David Crotty http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5317 David Crotty Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:33:38 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5317 That's quite a bit different from a blanket statement that "the most interesting science isn’t usually in the big name journals". Sure, the bigger journals are looking for complete, meaningful results as opposed to preliminary experiments that might lead to something. And I'd argue that a big, groundbreaking paper that opens up new concepts and pathways is probably more likely to lead to interesting experiments for other researchers than a lesser, preliminary report (though perhaps the latter might provide a faster route to meaningful results if one is willing to poach someone else's project). I'd also argue that there's no clear correlation between journal level and methods used, although in the lower-tier journals, there's often more room for description of the methods (one of the driving forces for so many top tier publishers to recently start methods journals and add large amounts of supplemental data and description). As for hypotheses, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. That’s quite a bit different from a blanket statement that “the most interesting science isn’t usually in the big name journals”. Sure, the bigger journals are looking for complete, meaningful results as opposed to preliminary experiments that might lead to something. And I’d argue that a big, groundbreaking paper that opens up new concepts and pathways is probably more likely to lead to interesting experiments for other researchers than a lesser, preliminary report (though perhaps the latter might provide a faster route to meaningful results if one is willing to poach someone else’s project).

I’d also argue that there’s no clear correlation between journal level and methods used, although in the lower-tier journals, there’s often more room for description of the methods (one of the driving forces for so many top tier publishers to recently start methods journals and add large amounts of supplemental data and description).

As for hypotheses, I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder.

]]> By: Kent Anderson http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5316 Kent Anderson Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:56:53 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5316 Well, that's just getting it backwards. I never said that journals should purposely become mid-tier to be viewed as more interesting. I said a scientist I spoke with found the methods, hypotheses, and preliminary results in the mid- and lower-tier journals to be more interesting. That has no effect on the sociology of publishing status. In fact, this person was clearly browsing these tiers looking for something to convert into a breakthrough for a top-tier journal. But for inspiration and lateral thinking, I can see why you might want to be aware of some ideas there. For the purpose of curation, it seems like an opportunity -- do you really think the top-tier journals publish all the interesting science? That's a batting average I'd be envious of. Well, that’s just getting it backwards. I never said that journals should purposely become mid-tier to be viewed as more interesting. I said a scientist I spoke with found the methods, hypotheses, and preliminary results in the mid- and lower-tier journals to be more interesting. That has no effect on the sociology of publishing status. In fact, this person was clearly browsing these tiers looking for something to convert into a breakthrough for a top-tier journal. But for inspiration and lateral thinking, I can see why you might want to be aware of some ideas there. For the purpose of curation, it seems like an opportunity — do you really think the top-tier journals publish all the interesting science? That’s a batting average I’d be envious of.

]]> By: David Crotty http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5315 David Crotty Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:50:06 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5315 I can categorically state that there aren't any scientists I know who would deliberately publish in a lower-tier journal rather than a top-tier journal because of a perception that the top-tier journals are less interesting. I can also make a pretty solid assumption that there aren't any journal editors out there looking to lower the reputation of their journals in order to attract more interesting papers. I can categorically state that there aren’t any scientists I know who would deliberately publish in a lower-tier journal rather than a top-tier journal because of a perception that the top-tier journals are less interesting. I can also make a pretty solid assumption that there aren’t any journal editors out there looking to lower the reputation of their journals in order to attract more interesting papers.

]]> By: Richard Sever http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5314 Richard Sever Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:09:47 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5314 I think you need to increase your sample size. Of the many researchers I know, very few would say the most interesting science is not in the big journals (and those that do claim this generally reveal more about their own bias than anything else). The reason for this is the top journals have large editorial staffs paid to seek out interesting work - essentially curation in advance. What all would admit, however, is that there are occasional interesting articles that do not make it into the top journals - for a variety of reasons. This was the premise for Faculty of 1000. But, while this is a very nice idea in concept, one should be aware many researchers remain unconvinced - amid rumors that many of the 'faculty' actually do rather little. Note also that sections in journals devoted to ‘interesting papers elsewhere’ frequently point to the same papers in the same big 3/4 journals. This might just be a self-reinforcing hype cycle. Alternatively, it might just be because the peak journals are pretty good at attracting the interesting stuff and there’s not a huge amount worth prospecting for elsewhere. I think you need to increase your sample size. Of the many researchers I know, very few would say the most interesting science is not in the big journals (and those that do claim this generally reveal more about their own bias than anything else). The reason for this is the top journals have large editorial staffs paid to seek out interesting work – essentially curation in advance.

What all would admit, however, is that there are occasional interesting articles that do not make it into the top journals – for a variety of reasons. This was the premise for Faculty of 1000. But, while this is a very nice idea in concept, one should be aware many researchers remain unconvinced – amid rumors that many of the ‘faculty’ actually do rather little.

Note also that sections in journals devoted to ‘interesting papers elsewhere’ frequently point to the same papers in the same big 3/4 journals. This might just be a self-reinforcing hype cycle. Alternatively, it might just be because the peak journals are pretty good at attracting the interesting stuff and there’s not a huge amount worth prospecting for elsewhere.

]]> By: stevepog http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/26/the-future-of-publishing-trust-and-curation-says-the-founder-of-craigslist/#comment-5313 stevepog Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:37:15 +0000 http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=6644#comment-5313 Like what you are saying about needing both important and interesting elements in publishing. This is something we're doing at http://f1000.com, identifying the science papers in the lesser-known journals that researchers need to know about. The key to getting the message out is also, as you mention at the end, using social media and making the relevant sites available for smartphones so people can get the right information anywhere, anytime Like what you are saying about needing both important and interesting elements in publishing. This is something we’re doing at http://f1000.com, identifying the science papers in the lesser-known journals that researchers need to know about.
The key to getting the message out is also, as you mention at the end, using social media and making the relevant sites available for smartphones so people can get the right information anywhere, anytime

]]>