Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Monday, November 30th, 2009 by Gene Golovchinsky I’ve written about some alternatives to the current review process, and I believe one of ways in which the current process can be improved is by formal recognition of reviewers’ efforts. While many conferences and journals acknowledge reviewers by publishing their names, this does not reflect the quality of the effort put in by some reviewers. A more lasting and public recognition of quality reviewers may be one way to improve the quality of this volunteer effort. Interestingly, the APS recently instituted a policy of recognizing referees who review the articles submitted to the various APS journals.
Update: You might be interested in the follow-up to this post: An Example of Searching for the News Decoder Ring . Maybe I’m just getting cranky, but over the weekend and into today I’ve found myself thinking about some building blocks of journalism and thinking, “You know, this is broken.” Not broken as in “this really needs to be recast for the Web” or “some kind of digital adjunct would help here,” but broken as in “this no longer works, and we need to stop doing it.”
I have been spending a lot of time lately talking to people in various media companies: editors and agents, executives, journalists, producers and directors. It’s a fascinating time to see content industries in action, because they are facing a constantly changing landscape and are really trying to keep up. In other words, they are facing conditions of extreme uncertainty, just like startups. So I generally feel right at home in these conversations.
I was in Borders Books today looking for a copy of David Weinberger’s Everything Is Miscellaneous , and it suddenly struck me how ironic it was to be looking for a book about dynamic connectedness in this place of static, disconnected objects and finite shelf space.
The practice of open source reporting, still nascent, can take many forms. News organizations are experimenting with methods to open up the reporting process to their readers in an attempt to find the best methods. Scientific American had reportedly been “kicking around the idea for months,” and received its opportunity to take a stab at open source reporting when the story of “ Lucy’s Baby ,” the recently discovered reportedly 3.3 million year old skeleton of an ancestor of human beings called A. Afarensis and nicknamed Selam, made headlines.
Found 2052 results Learning from the Past: Answering New Questions with Past Answers Shtok, A. ; Dror, G. ; Maarek, Y. ; Szpektor, I. , WWW'2012, April 2012, Lyon, France, (2012)
In a perfect world, scientists share problems and work together on solutions for the good of society. In the real world, however, that's usually not the case. The main obstacles: competition for publication and intellectual property protection.
Unsorted [/writers] James Patrick Kelly - Murder Your Darlings - "When time comes to make that final revision, however, you must harden your heart, sharpen the ax and murder your darlings." Greda Vaso - Determining the Readability of a Book - includes formulas for Gunning's Fog Index, Flesch Formula, Powers Sumner Kearl L. Kip Wheeler - Literary Terms and Definitions L. Kip Wheeler - Comp - Lit - Poetry - Links - more
1. Part of a book I am writing 2.
Google wants new friends. After signing a series of new partners, CEO Eric Schmidt says the Web giant's spate of recent deals is just a start. Schmidt talked to TIME about changing the company's philosophy and planning its next steps.
Nature (2006) | doi :10.1038/nature05008 The Digital Library Research and Prototyping Team at the research library of the Los Alamos National Laboratory conducts research on various aspects of scholarly communication in the digital age, including peer review. Our research attempts simultaneously to analyse properties of the existing review system, and to formulate feasible alternatives. A core inspiration is that the digital environment allows for (indeed, requires) systemic changes in scholarly communication procedures. This potential for fundamental change is related to two properties of the digital environment that were unavailable in the paper world.
Nature (2006) | doi :10.1038/nature04992 Who are the peers in peer review? In journals such as Nature , they usually have a PhD and work in a field relevant to the paper under consideration. If they are academics, they may be tenured professors, usually people on a relatively short list of experts who have agreed to review papers. This is a little élitist, but credentials such as PhDs and tenure are given in part to reward those things – experience, insight, brains and the respect of other researchers – that also make for wise advice. The process is not perfect, for reasons ranging from cronyism to capriciousness, yet long experience has shown it to be better than the alternatives.
Academics work hard to produce innovative cutting-edge research, often with very little financial support, but submitting a finished article is by no means the end of their difficulties. We all know that the peer-review process is important for maintaining high standards of work, but the reality is that the traditional system of peer-review, where an editor sends the paper off to two or three anonymous reviewers, is full of serious problems— Unnecessarily lengthy review periods Papers rejected for trivial reasons Reviewers not reading work properly owing to time pressures Publication blocked because a reviewer is working on something similar Reviewers reacting unprofessionally to criticism of their work Tendency for reviewers to be established authors, with subsequent bias against novel ideas and methodologies Good reviews, followed by, “However, I’m not sure it is right for this journal — why not submit to X instead?”