I took a look at his slides--looks pretty interesting, and I would have liked to have heard the talk! I am not sure I would be ready to advocate having no more journals, but I am interested in thinking about the idea. Imagine just putting your data up on the website, and you're finished! And then wait for comments/links to show up, I guess--would that be the metric for grants/funding? I also wonder what could be done so that the record would not be changed?
JPK On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:14 AM, John R Helliwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jacob, > Your posting reminds me of a Research Information Network Conference I > went to in 2006 in London. > Your views coincide with a presenter there, Peter Mika. > His talk can be found at:- > http://www.rin.ac.uk/news/events/data-webs-new-visions-research-data-web > In his talk he referred to:- openacademia.org > Peter Mika and I were on the Closing Panel; he advocated that > refereeing is an imposition on a researcher's > individual freedom and thus he/she should 'publish' their work on > their own website. By contrast, I argued in favour of > Journals and peer review, both with respect to my articles and my > experiences as an Editor of more than one Journal. > > I would be happy to continue corresponding on this not least as > publication should be a varied spectrum of options. > Also I feel obliged to say that one cannot apply simply, by rote, > 'Learned Society publisher is good', 'commercial publisher is bad'; > there are exceptions in both camps. [in effect this was the tone of my > last posting.] > > Greetings, > John > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Jacob Keller > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I guess the practice of being "on your best behavior" is good in terms >> of getting the research trimmed into shape, but there is a huge >> temptation to fudge things to get published, and to hide unpleasant >> artifacts, as can be seen by the many recent (and not so recent) >> scandals. Maybe as a lab website things would be more open. Also, >> having a comments section always seemed like an excellent idea to me, >> even for journals as they are, but would be really easy to implement >> in a website. I would love to read comments from others in the field >> about the papers I read, as sometimes people can help to point out >> gaping holes where one might not see them otherwise. It would be like >> "journal club" for the whole scientific community. >> >> Jacob >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jrh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dear Jacob >>> Re journals out of the window:- >>> Well, like democracy, journals may not be ideal but I believe other >>> alternatives such as free for all personal website publishing, are worse. >>> So, journals that are community driven offer an optimal approach, >>> critically based on specialist peer review. That is why our community >>> effort IUCr Journals I believe are so important. Open access, where we can >>> sustain it financially, also can convey access to the widest readership ie >>> that the high impact magazines currently, mainly, command. >>> All best wishes, >>> John >>> Prof John R Helliwell DSc >>> >>> >>> On 17 Nov 2010, at 18:28, Jacob Keller <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Supplementary info seems to me to be a double-edged sword--I just read >>>> a Nature article that had 45 pages of supplementary info. This means >>>> that you get a lot more for your money, but all of the methods and >>>> >>>> Why not have papers be as long as the authors want, now that almost >>>> everything is internet-based? It would make the papers much more >>>> organized overall, and would obviate the reference issue mentioned in >>>> this thread. To avoid them being too too long, reviewers could object >>>> to long-windedness etc. But, it would definitely make for a more >>>> complete "lab notebook of the scientific community," assuming that >>>> that is what we are after. >>>> >>>> Incidentally, I have been curious in the past why journals are not >>>> going out the window themselves--why not have individual labs just >>>> post their most recent data and interpretations on their own websites, >>>> with a comments section perhaps? (I know there are about a thousand >>>> cynical reasons why not...) One could even have a place for >>>> "reliability rating" or "impact rating" on each new chunk of data. >>>> Anyway, it would be much more like a real-time, public lab notebook, >>>> and would make interaction much faster, and cut out the publishing >>>> middlemen. >>>> >>>> JPK >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Phoebe Rice <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Another unfortunate aspect of this sort of editorial policy is that many >>>>> of these papers contain almost no technical information at all, except >>>>> for the supplement. I've started to avoid using Nature papers for class >>>>> discussions becuase they leave the students so puzzled, and with a >>>>> glossiness-is-all-that-matters idea of science. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ===================================== >>>>> Phoebe A. Rice >>>>> Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology >>>>> The University of Chicago >>>>> phone 773 834 1723 >>>>> http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/Faculty_and_Research/01_Faculty/01_Faculty_Alphabetically.php?faculty_id=123 >>>>> http://www.rsc.org/shop/books/2008/9780854042722.asp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- Original message ---- >>>>>> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:12:26 +0000 >>>>>> From: CCP4 bulletin board <[email protected]> (on behalf of John R >>>>>> Helliwell <[email protected]>) >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Citations in supplementary material >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Victor, >>>>>> I strongly support the stance that is in the Acta D Editorial. >>>>>> Manfred Weiss worked very hard assembling those details and over quite >>>>>> some time; he deserves our thanks. >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Victor Lamzin <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to bring to your attention the recent Editorial in Acta >>>>>>> Cryst D >>>>>>> (http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2010/12/00/issconts.html), which >>>>>>> highlights the long-standing issue of under-citation of papers >>>>>>> published in >>>>>>> the IUCr journals. The Editorial, having looked at the papers published >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> 2009 in Nature, Science, Cell and PNAS, concluded: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'almost half of all references to publications in IUCr journals end up >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> published in the supplementary material only... Not only does this mean >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> the impact factor of IUCr journals should be higher, but also that the >>>>>>> real >>>>>>> overall numbers of citations of methods papers are much higher than >>>>>>> what is >>>>>>> reported, for instance, by the Web of Science' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although this topic may seem to concern mostly methods developers, I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> the whole research community will only benefit from more fair credit >>>>>>> that we >>>>>>> all give to our colleagues via referencing their publications. What do >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Victor >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Professor John R Helliwell DSc >>>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Professor John R Helliwell DSc >
