JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  November 2010

CCP4BB November 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Citations in supplementary material

From:

Jacob Keller <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jacob Keller <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:33:23 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

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 <[log in to unmask]> 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
> <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> (on behalf of John R Helliwell <[log in to unmask]>)
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Citations in supplementary material
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager