RLG's take on the UK's RAE results.

Lorcan Dempsey's weblog: Museum studies

Michael Keller's presentation to Stanford's Academic Senate, 13 Nov 2008

RP-8-2008.pdf (application/pdf Object), April 2008

The February 2008 issue of Anthropology News (49[2]) features an In Focus thematic commentary series on Open Access. Recognizing that this topic is of great interest to AAA members and larger anthropological communities, we will now feature an Open Access blog where members and non-members alike can offer both their reactions to the In Focus series and their general thoughts on the Open Access issue. To facilitate this discussion, full-text series articles will be available here Feb 1–March 1, after which all five articles will be archived at AnthroSource and AN Archives.

JCDL07poster_bollen.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez, Herbert Van de Sompel, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

U.S. Dept. of Energy with British Library and other sources:

WorldWideScience.org is a global science gateway—accelerating scientific discovery and progress through a multilateral partnership to enable federated searching of national and international scientific databases.

Stephen G. Nichols' article about the Roman de la rose digital initiative at Johns Hopkins.

Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10/3, 2008. 

Mark Ware, Publishing Research Consortium (London), January 25, 2008

Peer review rules; some prefer moving towards double-blind reviewing. 

Michael Jensen is director of strategic Web communications for the National Academies.

In the Web 3.0 world, we will also start seeing heavily computed reputation-and-authority metrics, based on many of the kinds of elements now used, as well as on elements that can be computed only in an information-rich, user-engaged environment. Given the inevitable advances in technology, remarkable things are likely to happen. In a world of unlimited computer processing, Authority 3.0 will probably include (the list is long, which itself is a sign of how sophisticated our new authority makers will have to be):

• Prestige of the publisher (if any).
• Prestige of peer prereviewers (if any).
• Prestige of commenters and other participants.
• Percentage of a document quoted in other documents.
• Raw links to the document.
• Valued links, in which the values of the linker and all his or her other links are also considered.
• Obvious attention: discussions in blogspace, comments in posts, reclarification, and continued discussion.
• Nature of the language in comments: positive, negative, interconnective, expanded, clarified, reinterpreted.
• Quality of the context: What else is on the site that holds the document, and what's its authority status?
• Percentage of phrases that are valued by a disciplinary community.
• Quality of author's institutional affiliation(s).
• Significance of author's other work.
• Amount of author's participation in other valued projects, as commenter, editor, etc.
• Reference network: the significance rating of all the texts the author has touched, viewed, read.
• Length of time a document has existed.
• Inclusion of a document in lists of "best of," in syllabi, indexes, and other human-selected distillations.
• Types of tags assigned to it, the terms used, the authority of the taggers, the authority of the tagging system.

None of those measures could be computed reasonably by human beings. They differ from current models mostly by their feasible computability in a digital environment where all elements can be weighted and measured, and where digital interconnections provide computable context.

Managing IPR in Digital Learning Materials: A Development Pack for Institutional Repositories

John Casey, Jackie Proven & David Dripps; UK 

By Jane Segal, Lisa Spiro and Pamela Francis, May 2007

GeneralSurveyThemesMay07.pdf (application/pdf Object)

• Hongquan Zhang , Qiang Zhao , Xing-Fang Li and X. Chris Le *
• Analyst, 2007, 132, 724-737
• DOI: 10.1039/b704256f
• Critical Review
• Example of article available with Prospect view and embedded Toolbox

14 Sept 2007: Royal Society of Chemistry's Project Prospect wins the 2007 ALPSP/Charlesworth Award.

"This project sees the introduction of semantics into chemical science publishing. RSC Project Prospect journals incorporate standard metadata within the full text of their articles and combine this with an elegant and intuitive on screen manifestation of the advantages of including this metadata.

"As a result, sophisticated and effective searching of the literature is greatly improved and the value gained from reading each article is significantly enhanced. RSC Project Prospect is delightfully simple to use and its benefits to authors and readers are immediately obvious."

Example of backward citing references.

Reference linking is available for all SPIE Journal papers published since 1999. Each Journal abstract page includes the complete list of references from that paper in HTML, with citation links as applicable. In addition, forward linking (citing articles) is now supported. Only subscribers can access this feature. Links are also provided to INSPEC and MEDLINE records. Proceedings papers have assigned DOI numbers and thus may be linked from other sources in the technical literature. Outbound reference linking from SPIE Proceedings papers to references cited within the paper is planned for the future. SPIE is a member of CrossRef.

Example of forward citing references.

CrossRef Forward Reference Linking
The SPIE Digital Library now also includes full CrossRef forward reference linking. In the past, forward linking was limited to citing articles published on the Scitation platform. With CrossRef-supported forward reference linking, new SPIE articles are deposited and stored in the CrossRef system. When a new citation is deposited from any other journal, SPIE is notified and a link to the new article is created even if the article is not published on Scitation.

Launched in June 2007 by Nature publishing as "a place for researchers to share pre-publication research."

July 16, 2007, Inside Higher Ed

Reports on study that compares scientific output from 9 countries in 7 fields

July 16, 2007, Inside Higher Ed

Reports on study that compares scientific output from 9 countries in 7 fields