Blogs selected for Week September 25 to October 1, 2017 -



1. Naiveté Scene - Open Source vs. Scale in Scholarly Publishing

Once again, the term “open” requires further thought to probe the pros and cons. With open source, we may be once again doing things that make the big bigger and the small less relevant, notes Kent Anderson, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.

The blog post says (quote) : It’s clear that open source isn’t required for success - commercial and proprietary technology tools on the market, including Java, Atlassian, Salesforce, and GitHub, are popular. Because they are commercial, their success delivers tax revenues, creates vibrant companies of their own, employs people, and speeds innovation in a more reliable manner. There is also a fair and possibly growing amount of business risk in basing technology decisions on open source solutions. Most recently, the Equifax breach may have been made possible because of a vulnerability in some open source software the company used. While not absolving Equifax of responsibility, the incident reminds us that even open source solutions need to be vetted and managed and upgraded……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

2. Tools and tips to manage your online reputation

With the multitude of online communication channels available it is essential for researchers to manage their online reputation and effectively plan their online promotion and public engagement tactics. Josh Clark, in his post in the Altmetric Blog, discusses the knowledge and guidance of two experts in the field of scholarly reputation management, for effectively planning an online outreach strategy.

The blog post says (quote) : Twitter is an essential device for promoting research and networking. Jon gave an example about his experiences documenting visits to international museums on Twitter whilst he was traveling. Researchers from the University of Edinburgh became interested in what he was posting and eventually got in contact which lead them to collaborate on a research project together. Jon uses Publons platform to track the peer review work he has done and, by doing so, is able to demonstrate his contribution to the scholarly community. Impactstory is a crucial tool for measuring how much his research has been shared online……………(unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

3. The ResearchGate Score rewards academics’ active participation on the platform above their publications and citations

There are now more than 13 million users registered to the ResearchGate platform, which doubles as a venue to display one’s academic achievements and a social networking site where scientists can interact with one another. Enrique Orduna-Malea, Alberto Martín-Martín, Mike Thelwall, and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, in their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, scrutinise one of its key features, the much-maligned RG Score. While the computation of this metric is not transparent, closer analysis suggests it rewards participation in the platform, especially in its Q&A section, above all else.

The blog post says (quote) : The RG Score indicator has been extensively criticised since its launch because of its absolute lack of transparency. To this day, the company has not disclosed the specific factors used for its computation, nor the weight each factor has on the final composite indicator. Among the studies to have addressed this issue, one published by Peter Kraker, Kay Jordan, and Elisabeth Lex, and previously discussed in this very forum, described the RG Score as a bad metric. The authors demonstrated the difficulty of reproducing the RG Score, as well as its strong dependence on the Impact Points indicator (which is no longer public on the platform). For this purpose, the authors studied “a small sample of academics (30), who have a RG Score and only a single publication on their profile”. They then expanded the sample “to include examples from two further groups of academics (30 academics who have a RG Score and multiple publications; and a further 30 who have a RG Score, multiple publications, and have posted at least one question and answer)”…………… (unquote)

The full entry can be read Here.

4. Portable Peer Review RIP

The promise of portable peer review took a fatal blow earlier this year as Rubriq, the company that began a radical experiment to disrupt the peer review process, quietly closed its service after years of unremarkable uptake. After several pivots and failures, it may be time to finally say goodbye to portable peer review, discusses Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.

The blog post says (quote) : A commercial future of portable peer review looks less likely today than it did in 2012 when Rubriq announced its new venture. In spite of the rapid growth of the open access Article Processing Charge (APC) model, which shifted fees from the consumer to the producer, there is still little interest in shifting the financial costs of peer review to the author, even if the publisher promises a fast-track to publication. Nevertheless, the versions of portable peer review that persist are not truly portable. With its last pivot, Rubriq has become a service for publishers who wish to outsource some of its peer review and editorial operations. And while Peerage is still standing, it operates like a marketplace within a limited community of reviewers and participating journals……………(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