Skip to main content

Home/ science 2.0/ Group items tagged publisher

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
david osimo

Filter-then-publish vs. publish-then-filter | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week - 2 views

svpow.com/...publish-vs-publish-then-filter

science20 publishthenfilter

shared by david osimo on 03 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • david osimo on 03 Nov 13
     
    "Unlike many journals which attempt to use the peer review process to determine whether or not an article reaches the level of 'importance' required by a given journal, PLoS ONE uses peer review to determine whether a paper is technically sound and worthy of inclusion in the published scientific record. Once the work is published in PLoS ONE, the broader community is then able to discuss and evaluate the significance of the article (through the number of citations it attracts; the downloads it achieves; the media and blog coverage it receives; and the post-publication Notes, Comments and Ratings that it receives on PLoS ONE etc)."
iaravps

Research 2.0.3: The future of research communication : Soapbox Science - 0 views

blogs.nature.com/...ture-of-research-communication

scientific communication open access mestrado peer review open science reputation impact factor research quality

shared by iaravps on 14 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Open Access has led directly to an increase in usage of platforms that make is easy for researchers to comply with this mandate by depositing open access versions of their papers. Examples of companies in this space are Academia.edu, ResearchGate.net and Mendeley.  Open Access also means that anyone can contribute to the post-publication evaluation of research articles.
  • There are a number of initiatives focused on improving the process of peer review. Post-publication peer review, in which journals publish papers after minimal vetting and then encourage commentary from the scientific community, has been explored by several publishers, but has run into difficulties incentivizing sufficient numbers of experts to participate.  Initiatives like Faculty of 1000 have tried to overcome this by corralling experts as part of post-publication review boards.  And sometimes, as in the case of arsenic-based life, the blogosphere has taken peer review into its own hands.
  • Traditionally the number of first and senior author publications, and the journal(s) in which those publications appear, has been the key criteria for assessing the quality of a researcher’s work. This is used by funding agencies to determine whether to award research grants to conduct their future work, as well as by academic research institutions to inform hiring and career progression decisions. However, this is actually a very poor measure of a researcher’s true impact since a) it only captures a fraction of a researcher’s contribution and b) since more than 70% of published research cannot be reproduced, the publication based system rewards researchers for the wrong thing (the publication of novel research, rather than the production of robust research).
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The h-index was one of the first alternatives proposed as a measure of scientific research impact.  It and its variants rely on citation statistics, which is a good start, but includes a delay which can be quite long, depending on the rapidity with which papers are published in a particular field.  There are a number of startups that are attempting to improve the way a researcher’s reputation is measured. One is ImpactStory which is attempting to aggregate metrics from researcher’s articles, datasets, blog posts, and more. Another is ResearchGate.net which has developed its own RG Score.
  • Which set of reputational signifiers rise to the top will shape the future of science itself.
katarzyna szkuta

Figsgare - 0 views

figshare.com

science20 reputation platform

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12 - No Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12
     
    Figshare allows researchers to publish all of their research outputs in seconds in an easily citable, sharable and discoverable manner. All file formats can be published, including videos and datasets that are often demoted to the supplemental materials section in current publishing models. By opening up the peer review process, researchers can easily publish null results, avoiding the file drawer effect and helping to make scientific research more efficient. Figshare uses creative commons licensing to allow frictionless sharing of research data whilst allowing users to maintain their ownership.
david osimo

JMIR--Crowdsourced Health Research Studies: An Important Emerging Complement to Clinica... - 0 views

www.jmir.org/e46

science20 health medicalresearch

shared by david osimo on 16 Apr 12 - No Cached
  • david osimo on 16 Apr 12
     
    Results: Participatory health is a growing area with individuals using health social networks, crowdsourced studies, smartphone health applications, and personal health records to achieve positive outcomes for a variety of health conditions. PatientsLikeMe and 23andMe are the leading operators of researcher-organized, crowdsourced health research studies. These operators have published findings in the areas of disease research, drug response, user experience in crowdsourced studies, and genetic association. Quantified Self, Genomera, and DIYgenomics are communities of participant-organized health research studies where individuals conduct self-experimentation and group studies. Crowdsourced health research studies have a diversity of intended outcomes and levels of scientific rigor.s
katarzyna szkuta

PLOS article level metrics - 0 views

article-level-metrics.plos.org

science20 reputation

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12 - Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12
     
    Research in context The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is the first publisher to place transparent and comprehensive information about the usage and reach of published articles onto the articles themselves, so that the entire academic community can assess their value.
katarzyna szkuta

Scholastica: Academic publishing done the right way - 0 views

scholasticahq.com

science20 case open science

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12 - No Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12
     
    Scholastica makes managing an academic journal better and faster. It provides an academic ecosystem around the activities that scholars do in real life - peer review new ideas, decide which to publish, and discuss new ideas to push knowledge ever forward. Simple tools to help manage your scholarly journal Powerfully search and sort all of your journal's manuscripts.
katarzyna szkuta

InTech - Open Science Open Minds | InTechOpen - 0 views

www.intechopen.com

open science publisher

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 04 Apr 12 - No Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 04 Apr 12
     
    InTechOpen is a leading global publisher of Journals and Books within the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. We are the preferred choice of over 60,000 authors worldwide.
katarzyna szkuta

The Third Reviewer - 0 views

thirdreviewer.com

science20 case open science applied basic biology

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 16 Apr 12 - Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 16 Apr 12
     
    The Third Reviewer is a forum for scientists to share opinions about recently published research. It's like journal club, but... Faster. No need to set aside an hour of your time. Convenient. Check in from home or at lab, at 5 a.m. or 10 p.m. Comprehensive.
katarzyna szkuta

Nature Network - 0 views

network.nature.com

science20 case open science

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12 - Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 26 Apr 12
     
    Connecting scientists worldwide, with blogs, forums, and groups. Social networking for scientists. From the publishers of Nature.
katarzyna szkuta

Freeing the Dark Data of Failed Scientific Experiments - 1 views

www.wired.com/...st_essay

science20 open science

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 05 Apr 12 - Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 05 Apr 12
     
    In 1981, the New England Journal of Medicine published a Harvard study that showed an unexpected link between drinking coffee and pancreatic cancer. As it happened, researchers were anticipating a connection between alcohol or tobacco and cancer. But according to the survey of several hundred patients, booze and cigarettes didn't seem to increase your risk.
katarzyna szkuta

openingscience book - 0 views

book.openingscience.org

science20 open science

shared by katarzyna szkuta on 08 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • katarzyna szkuta on 08 Jan 14
     
    The Evolving Guide on How the Web is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Edited by Sönke Bartling & Sascha Friesike.
david osimo

Research 2.0.2: How research is conducted : Soapbox Science - 0 views

blogs.nature.com/...-0-2-how-research-is-conducted

collaboration

shared by david osimo on 14 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Traditionally, research was conducted by a single scientist or a small team of scientists within a single laboratory. The scientist(s) would conduct the majority of required experiments themselves, even if they did not initially have the necessary expertise or equipment. If they could not conduct an experiment themselves, they would attempt to find a collaborator in another lab to help them by using a barter system. This barter system essentially involves one scientist asking for a favor from another scientist, with the potential upside being co-authorship on any publications that are produced by the work. This type of collaborative arrangement depends heavily on personal networks developed by scientists.
  • The amount of collaboration required in research will continue to increase, driven by many factors including: The need for ever more complex and large scale instrumentation to delve deeper into biological and physical processes The maturation of scientific disciplines requiring more and more knowledge in order to make significant advances, a demand which can often only be met by pooling knowledge with others An increasing desire to obtain cross-fertilization across disciplines
  • So with large teams of scientists, often based at remote institutions, increasingly needing to work together to solve complex problems, there will be a demand for new tools to help facilitate collaboration. Specifically, there will be an increasing need for tools that allow researchers to easily find and access other scientists with the expertise required to advance their research projects. In my view, to operate most efficiently these tools also need new methods to reward researchers for participating in these collaborations.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • One result of the rise in research requiring the combination of multiple specialized areas of expertise on ever shortening time-scales is, unfortunately, a concomitant decrease in the reproducibility of the published results (New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Nature.).  It is now apparent that independent validation of key experimental findings is an essential step that will be placed in the research process.
1 - 18 of 18
Showing 20▼ items per page