How Meaningful and Reliable Are Social Article Metrics?
New publishing initiatives link concepts like “importance” to social metrics like popularity and sharing. Is this logical? Can these metrics be easily gamed?
New publishing initiatives link concepts like “importance” to social metrics like popularity and sharing. Is this logical? Can these metrics be easily gamed?
A write-up of a presentation at Charleston, here’s one way to parse trust in academic publishing.
The expenses publishers incur rejecting papers and book proposals are about more than filtering.
Radiohead’s bassist contemplates the band’s journey through digital distribution as they prepare to release another group of songs. Publishers can find parallels.
A “new” approach to making a journal smacks of old thinking, and is essentially inflammatory and naive.
Improving participation in peer-review may be a matter of finding the right combination of incentives.
Do the benefits of peer review outweigh the work involved? How does post-publication review stack up in comparison?
A set of findings confirm rather than surprise, but apparently some publishers are still behaving as if they’ll be surprised.
An article’s authors and a journal’s editor are surprised when a puff-piece backfires. Thanks for the pretentious seriousness, blogosphere.
The Research Information Network’s new report on researchers and Web 2.0 offers a similar set of results to previous studies: uptake is relatively low, and the trustworthiness and quality of online resources are suspect. The report offers contrary evidence to common myths about “digital natives” and some useful advice for anyone looking to build social media.
Post-publication review is spotty, unreliable, and may suffer from cronyism, several studies reveal.
Journals that fail to keep up with background Impact Factor inflation may actually be losing ground.
When most papers submitted ultimately get published, and in an age driven by pooled philosophies and practices, are we already participating in a “filter failure” of immense proportions?
The system of scientific publication is broken, with rewards cynically exploited by many players while science fills with more and more garbage. How can we fix this?
Scientists seem uninterested in participating in social media offerings, as the rewards offered are generally of insufficient value to warrant the effort required. Instead of just hoping that scientists will suddenly see the value in your product, why not offer incentives for participation?