Comments on: Participation Value and Shelf-Life for Journal Articles

By: Make it a pub « A Man With A Ph.D.

Make it a pub « A Man With A Ph.D. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:45:46 +0000

[...] it a pub November 9, 2009 — Richard Participation Value and Shelf-Life for Journal Articles: [Via The Scholarly Kitchen] Discussion forums built around academic journal articles haven’t [...]

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:34:33 +0000

The most participatory social interaction many researchers partake in real life are the discussions that occur around a table at a pub, particularly if a stellar scientist is participating. They do not generally sit around and discuss a particular paper when they do this. More like a wide-ranging series of topics. Even journal clubs are often much more wide-ranging than a single topic from a single paper. The best online manifestation of this can easily be seen at the various science blogs, especially those run by prominent scientists. The discussions at RealClimate, ResearchBlogging or even Pharyngula often have much more in common with all sorts of normal scientific discourse than those seen for journal articles. It seems to me that if a journal wants to have many researchers participate in scientific discussions at its website, it would do better to follow this model than to simply allow comments on papers. In particular, journals from professional associations, which already have a built-in audience, might want to do this instead of paper-by-paper discussions.

By: John's Fac-o-blog » Blog Archive » From the Scholarly Kitchen…

John's Fac-o-blog » Blog Archive » From the Scholarly Kitchen… — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:27:07 +0000

[...] is changing, and what some viable directions might be with regards to directing that change. Here is the full [...]

By: Kent Anderson

Kent Anderson — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:43:34 +0000

Right, but in many cases, the introduction of papers into the “real world” sheds light on aspects that weren’t as clear in the academic halls. The discussion around these implications, as well as awareness that a paper has become public, could/should drive discussion. We’re still discussing some papers from 100+ years ago, after all. Awareness is not the same as meaning.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:50:00 +0000

Maybe that should factor in to “shelf life” in the equation–perhaps “freshness” should be a component.

By: Richard Sever

Richard Sever — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:21:57 +0000

There’s an additional factor at play here: by the time many important papers are published, the key players in the field have known about the data for a while.

The work will have already been discussed privately among the authors’ close friends. It will then have been presented at conferences, where the real public discussion occurs.

Thus, in a sense, such papers are old news by the time they’re published, and participating in discussion at that stage probably only serves to reveal that one is ‘out of the loop’.