Louis, I think you are missing the point. I'm not talking about what
a person does on their vita or the list of publications they put
on their websites, I'm talking about researcher social media
websites that use algorithms to do web crawls, citations on
websites, or use an incorrectly dated article on its website.
It wasn't until this morning that I understood what was happening
on the site that I'm on when I was asked whether I'd confirm
that I was an author on a paper. It was a paper of mine and
I already had in my list of publications but it had the wrong
year of publication. I went to the publisher's website to check
on what they had and that's where I saw that the original year
(1996) was provided but there was also a "made available
online" year of 2010. The software on the social media
website using both dates but treated them as separate pubs
(yes, in this case one would have two publications counted
instead of one -- which I'm sure will cause people to say
"shut up" because this makes certain metrics better).
I don't really know how the website came up with the second
publication but I declined being claiming I was a co-author
on the second article even though I was. The original article
was enough for me.
But it does make one wonder how widespread this problem
is. The website does not seem to confirm a publication
listing against any established database (at least that I can
determine) nor does it seem to check citations against
Web of Science or Google Scholar, instead it depends upon
member verifying that they have cited an article (which can
be a real problem for people who can't be bothered to do so
or who have shuffled off this mortal coil). Somebody should
do some research on this.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:49:27 -0700, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:
I see what you mean, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think the
solution
is an ethical one. For me it not an issue of fudging a resume or
footnotes/endnotes. So, as I have always done on my resume and
applications,
is to put a dateless "accepted for publication" on an hardcopy article
or book
or whatever, knowing that only God knows when the piece will actually
come out.
I've had a book stay in limbo after acceptance for three years. As for
online
dating--of publications--, my recent book came out simultaneously both
in
hardcopy and e-copy, but it's only listed on my resume once. Usually, I
will
list a publication when it first comes out, hard or e-copy. I will also
say
for a hard copy or an e-copy, in parentheses, that the piece is or will
be
available in another form. This serves two purposes. First, it's a
matter of
price: hardcopy is $25; e-copy on Kindle, Ibook, Kobu, Smashwords, Nook
is $7.
Second, scope of accessibility. So, I've had orders on my e-book
version from
India, Australia, even China, that I wouldn't have had in hardcopy.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=36172
or send a blank email to
leave-36172-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
