The review article follows narrative conventions similar to other journal articles limiting its value in many types of discovery processes. Could the review article’s organization and analysis of the field be used to improve discovery in other types of research workflows?
I have been tracking one kind of discovery – what I will call the quest for comprehensiveness – that is widespread among researchers but seems comparatively quiescent in professional discussion about supporting researcher needs. Would it be possible, I wonder, to develop a discovery tool that is designed not to find you the best items but rather to provide some assurance that you hadn’t missed something?
The abstract is an element of scientific papers we take for granted. Is that a good idea in a networked information environment gravitating to usage-based measures?