tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2889894315257595136.post3404118922853733543..comments2016-10-23T12:45:43.719+01:00Comments on MIR Research: The Future of the Paper IndustryEliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06133166115774380054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2889894315257595136.post-25910486254405982212007-07-20T12:08:00.000+01:002007-07-20T12:08:00.000+01:00Christian D. and Paul, thanks for the links! I'll ...Christian D. and Paul, thanks for the links! I'll check them out as soon as I have some time :-)Eliashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06133166115774380054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2889894315257595136.post-11349048924649018252007-07-20T03:47:00.000+01:002007-07-20T03:47:00.000+01:00There's an interesting article that touches on som...There's an interesting article that touches on some of this here:<BR/>http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/f8a1780809ed3110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.htmlchristianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01957133516328135433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2889894315257595136.post-29750837121766185162007-07-11T11:38:00.000+01:002007-07-11T11:38:00.000+01:00I like the idea of open reviews... it would help m...I like the idea of open reviews... it would help me as a paper reader find better papers to read, and as a paper writer to improve my papers and as a paper reviewer, to improve my reviews. <BR/><BR/>Nature magazine had a trial open peer review. Their conclusions: Despite the significant interest in the trial, only a small proportion of authors opted to participate. There was a significant level of expressed interest in open peer review among those authors who opted to post their manuscripts openly and who responded after the event, in contrast to the views of the editors. A small majority of those authors who did participate received comments, but typically very few, despite significant web traffic. Most comments were not technically substantive. Feedback suggests that there is a marked reluctance among researchers to offer open comments.<BR/><BR/>Read more here:http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.htmlUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04150347809993077119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2889894315257595136.post-65541109168899170662007-07-11T10:53:00.000+01:002007-07-11T10:53:00.000+01:00It's funny that there's all this innovation going ...It's funny that there's all this innovation going on right now, yet distribution, reviewing, etc. of papers hasn't really changed much at all. It seems strange that at a place like Google, where everyone comes has an academic background and must have run into the same nuisances you describe here, they haven't dealt with this type of thing. While the rest of the web is ever so 2.0, the paper industry (good term) probably hasn't reached 0.5. <BR/>And it's not just measurements of quality - even searching for papers could be much more advanced than it is. <BR/>I like the idea of Amazon like paper reviewing. Could make research a lot easier. "People who liked this paper also liked.."<BR/><BR/>Or are we going to see "The last paper repository you'll ever need" someday? ;)christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01957133516328135433noreply@blogger.com