Blogs selected for Week October 16 to October 22, 2017 -



1. The next stage of SocArXiv's development: bringing greater transparency and efficiency to the peer review process

Almost 1,500 papers have been uploaded to SocArXiv since its launch last year. Up to now the platform has operated alongside the peer-review journal system rather than seriously disrupting it. Looking ahead to the next stage of its development, Philip Cohen, in his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, discusses how SocArXiv might challenge the peer review system to be more efficient and transparent, firstly by confronting the bias that leads many who benefit from the status quo to characterise mooted alternatives as extreme.

The blog post says (quote): Non-exclusive review and publication: one option is to open papers to review by more than one editorial body at a time. Papers could be posted openly and then reviewed by any "journal" interested in them. Authors could decide whether to revise their work in response to none, any, or all of the reviews, and have the work “accepted” by multiple editorial bodies. Or the work could be forked, with different versions accepted after different revision paths. This is not so different from how some of us work now, with extended projects over multiple papers, but professional rules currently prohibit simultaneous submission. The advantages here might include expanding the network of interaction, and inspiring collaboration and exchange across research areas. For example, editors or reviewers in the area of economic sociology might be interested to see demographers' reviews of the same paper. The current system is highly inefficient when papers bounce from journal to journal, with reviewers at every stage............(Unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. 10 tips for promoting your research online

How do you make sure the right people are seeing your research? Is it being read as much as you'd like? In his guest post in the BioMed Central Blog, Joshua Clark shares some useful tips for promoting your research online.

The blog post says (quote): Publishing an article doesn't tell the full story of your research. You can make images, files and other outputs associated with it available through a digital repository such as Figshare. When you upload your research to a repository they will give it a unique identifier. This makes citing your research easier, as well as tracking online attention with services such as Altmetric. Post links to your work via any social media accounts you have. You could also focus your promotion around any significant events that are happening, such as conferences that may be interested in your research topic, by using the event's hashtag. As well as using your own social profiles you may find you get more engagement from using your department's accounts............(Unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. 5 Ways to Apply Semantic Search Across Your Organization

Semantic search builds on enriched content by matching the user's query intent – not just the keywords they provide – to the relevant content, helping them quickly discover what they need. In his post in the CCC Blog, Mike Iarrobino illustrates how semantic search can have an immediate impact on five common use cases in life sciences and R&D organisations.

The blog post says (quote): Competitor patent filings, often intended to hinder discovery, can be explored alongside non-patent literature (NPL) to provide a full picture of competitor strategy, claims, and prior art for patent landscaping or other purposes. Literature monitoring for pharmacovigilance can become both more comprehensive and more precise through semantic searches that suggest links between adverse events and pharmacological substances, increasing the efficiency of these vital monitoring workflows. Researchers can take advantage of well-established chemical ontologies to conduct more efficient semantic search for chemicals, more easily identifying relevant chemical compounds their properties and relationships. R&D and information managers routinely use keyword search to find information they need. While keyword search may satisfy the basic needs of researchers there are limitations that can affect productivity and slow the pace of discovery............(Unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. Difficulty In Finding Reviewers Taints Editorial Decisions

Finding willing academics to review a manuscript is getting more difficult for some journals. A new study reports that this difficulty may also be negatively affecting the judgement of journal editors, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.

The blog post says (quote): Editors routinely send title, author, and abstract information to invited reviewers, who use that information before committing to review. As a reviewer, it's not hard to glean from the abstract whether the paper is relevant, important, and ultimately worth your time. Now, here is where the study gets interesting. The ultimate decision to accept or reject a paper was not fully explained by what reviewers thought of the manuscript. Even after controlling for reviewer assessment, recruitment difficulty still predicted editors' decision. Fox postulates that declining to review a manuscript sends a subtle message to the editor that the paper is not worth publishing. The more reviewers who decline, the stronger the negative signal............(Unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


sponsor links

For banner ads click here