Blogs selected for Week October 2 to October 8, 2017 -



1. Turning a Critical Eye on Reference Lists

Citations and the metrics around their use are an important part of evaluation and promotion of science and scientists and yet, little attention is paid to them in the peer review process. In her post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog, Angela Cochran makes a call to critically review reference lists and develop standards around what should and should not be included.

The blog post says (quote): A wide gap between the two numbers would show that a large portion of a researcher h-index comes from self-citations. Knowing this may tell a reader whether this author is a bona fide legend or just a legend in their own mind. Now that we have established the ways that researchers can inflate their h-index and capitalise on self-citations. Critical review of the reference section is warranted. Elsevier lists “references” as something that should be reviewed but it doesn’t say for what. PNAS and Wiley don’t mention references in their instructions. BMJ, Cell Press, and Taylor & Francis all recommend that reviewers ask if there are any glaring omissions of references but does not ask reviewers to review the references for quality or appropriateness.…………… (unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. Breaking Down Barriers in Scholarly Publishing

Change is a constant in any industry, but the rate of change within scholarly publishing is increasing rapidly on all fronts. In his guest post in the ALPSP Blog, Craig Griffin discusses a two-prong strategy to help scholarly publishers optimise the use and functionality of their content.

The blog post says (quote): Standardised formats allow content to reside in a more efficient database. With a clearly defined data and database structure, the software layer above can extract and display information across content eras and handle associations easily. Standardisation also allows content types to be related in a far more efficient and flexible manner. A video and a journal article, for example, with separate but standard structures can be related via metadata, content elements, or any other association desired by the publisher. Additionally, Standardised content becomes much more accessible to machines, which as of now are the primary consumer of content. This can be via discovery bots, search engine crawlers, or Text and Data Mining apparatuses. The rate and volume of these automated tools is the only true match to the explosion of content.…………… (unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. New media, familiar dynamics: academic hierarchies influence academics’ following behaviour on Twitter

For what reasons do academics follow one another on Twitter? In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Robert Jäschke, Stephanie B. Linek and Christian P. Hoffmann analysed the Twitter activity of computer scientists and found that while the quality of information provided by a Twitter account is a key motive for following academic colleagues, there is also evidence of a career planning motive.

The blog post says (quote): These findings imply that academic hierarchies indeed influence academics’ following behaviour on Twitter. The identified imbalances of following relationships cannot be solely explained by the (subjectively assumed) higher quality of information shared by professors. Rather, peer networking among established academics, the sharing of leveraging of professional capital, does seem to add to familiar seniority benefits. Academics on lower rungs of the professional ladder instead focus more on career planning in the form of strategic politeness. Accordingly, we did not identify a generally accepted norm of following back among academic Twitter users. While professors do tend to follow back their peers, they feel little need to do the same in the case of PhD student followers. PhD students, instead, eagerly follow back professorial followers. Social norms on Twitter, thereby, may vary by academic position.…………… (unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. Understanding Text Mining: 4 Need-to-Know Terms and Their Definitions

Text mining offers many benefits, but the technology is complex. Mike Iarrobino, in his post in the CCC Blog , discusses the four terms that every information manager needs to know to gain maximum insights.

The blog post says (quote): Information management professionals and librarians will be familiar with copyright licensing, reproduction rights organisations, and other frameworks and organisations that enable content consumers to use, share, and disseminate information while respecting copyright. There are a number of copyright-sensitive acts that go hand-in-hand with the text and data mining (TDM) process. Content may be copied, stored, annotated or enriched, and otherwise scanned to produce a useable research output. In most cases, commercial TDM rights are not included in standard subscription agreements. Publishers may make a standard or special set of ‘TDM rights’ available as part of their subscription agreements, or as additional incremental rights.…………… (unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

5. About Face - Scholarly Publishing and Social Media Regulation

A possible consequence of moves to more tightly regulate social media companies may be they start looking for new investments. And some in scholarly publishing already have started looking for new investments, notes Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.

The blog post says (quote): Facebook is not alone in establishing a beachhead in scholarly publishing. Google has two entry points, as well - with Google Scholar and, more recently, with its CASA initiative, partnering with HighWire Press. While the former is a natural elaboration of Google’s search indexing activities, CASA has the potential to put Google in the business of user authentication for researchers and scholars, extending from a stub “Subscriptions” function Scholar introduced along the way. In combination, the two could be potent levers in the future, delivering tons of user information to Google. On top of this is another approach Google has taken, which is less obvious - its work creating and supporting Creative Commons. Free information is to Google what cheap gas was to automakers, so the continued expansion of CC licenses in scholarly publishing fits with a larger strategy from Google we would be foolish to ignore - the easy appropriation of scholarly content by a large data company.…………… (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