Features - Take a Tour - F1000 If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here.
The Web Science Trust (WST) is a charitable body with the aim of supporting the global development of Web Science through a network of world class laboratories known as WSTnet . It is hosted by the University of Southampton. The origins of the Web Science Trust can be found in the Web Science Research Initiative (WSRI) which was established in 2006 and now in 2014 we have assembled 16 world-class international research groups and a series of international teaching and research events including an ACM Web Science conference now in it’s 5th year.
Welcome to Liquid Pub project! If you are interested in what we have done so far in the project, what we are doing now and what will be available in the near future you are in the right place! You can browse our research lines to have an idea of the different Liquid Pub dimensions, look at our videos , docs or presentations to get an idea of the Liquid Pub world. Research Areas — LiquidPub Project
Liquid Publications: Scientific Publications meet the WebChanging the way scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, evalua
Interdisciplines Copy/paste this URL to link to this paper The concept of homophily  describes relationships that are based on some measures of similarity or closeness. Despite the fact that no single definition exists for similarity, in the scope of this work, we consider two types of relationships to define similarity: citation and co-authorship. Using these relationships, we can measure similarity to be inversely proportional to the distance that separates researchers in the co-authorship network and papers in the citation network . Following this basic intuition, the rationale behind our homophily-weighted metrics consists on using the distance on these graphs to weight traditional metrics, which in this particular paper is applied to citation count. Abstract : Abstract
Documents Reviewing peer review: a quantitative analysis of peer review Fabio Casati, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Azzurra Ragone In this paper we focus on the analysis of peer reviews and reviewers behavior in a number of different review processes. More specifically, we report on the development, definition and rationale of a theoretical model for peer review processes to support the identification of appropriate metrics to assess the processes main properties. We then apply the proposed model and analysis framework to data sets from conference evaluation processes and we discuss the results implications and their eventual use toward improving the analyzed peer review processes. Research Evaluation — LiquidPub Project
Casati, Fabio and Marchese, Maurizio and Mirylenka, Katsiaryna and Ragone, Azzurra (2010) Reviewing peer review: a quantitative analysis of peer review. UNSPECIFIED. (Unpublished) University of Trento - Italy - UNITN-Eprints - Reviewing peer review: a quantitative analysis of peer review
Info Changing the way scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, evaluated, and consumed. Project description The LiquidPub project ended with the project review on May 13th 2011. An extensive analysis on the effectiveness of peer review, citation based metrics, and of homophily effects in citation patterns; a tool and process (available for the use to the general public); Liquid books , a novel evolutionary model for writing books that mix the benefits of multi-author collaborations with the agility, freedom and simplicity of personal editions; a platform for creating knowledge-sharing communities and encourage conversations out of events and seminars.
Is liquid publication and peer review the wave of the future in science? As a professor and researcher, one of my most time-consuming tasks is performing peer review. That is, reading and commenting on articles submitted to conferences and journals, proposals submitted to granting agencies, theses submitted for degrees, and promotion dossiers (which themselves require reading several papers). In this post I will point out the strengths and weaknesses of the current peer review systems, as I see them, and make some suggestions for change.
Richard Smith: Enter the “liquid journal” It may be what epidemiologists call “ascertainment bias” (seeing what you want to see), but I detect the beginning of the end of prepublication peer review. The latest death knell is the appearance of a “liquid journal” where scientists can post papers without peer review and papers in evolution, data sets, pieces of computer code, or blogs. The new journal is a research project funded by the European Union and supported by the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Springer Science (a major commercial publisher), and others. The new journal (and maybe “journal” is not the best word for such a new thing) is the idea of Fabio Casati, professor of computer science at the University of Trento and the holder of 20 patents. Casati thinks that scientists are spending too much time writing papers, many of them describing tiny incremental developments, and not enough time doing science.
Liquid Publications A possible alternative to Peer Review and the ‘publish or perish’ logic of academic publishing URL = http://www.liquidpub.org/ “In a nutshell, the approach proposes the following ideas and contributions: 1.