Peer-to-peer

In a discussion at Nature Network about the desirability, or otherwise, of developing a set of metrics to measure individual value, Roberto Cerbino suggests that an interesting factor for an experiment is peer-reviewing activity. Some journals already publish at the end of the year the list of names of reviewers. Perhaps, he writes, they could add some quantitative factor such as the number of papers reviewed or an evaluation index of the reviewer’s work? This would be a small but useful step to assess the contributions of individuals to their fields of activity.
Raf Aerts disagrees, cautions that researchers could accept as many review requests as possible to increase their r-factor, including manuscripts that are not really in their field of expertise.
Thomas Lemberger, EMBO editor of Molecular Systems Biology, on the other hand, points out that a simple ranking of referees could be based on combining frequency of review with speed: referees who review frequently and fast (which he calls the FF-metric) for a given journal are likely to be good referees, at least within the field covered by the journal.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 30, 2008
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)

Charles Darwin comments on the latest UK government initiative to engage society as a whole with science: "Scientists pressed, sweating into corners as costermongers, corn-chandlers, dogs meat men, chimneysweep’s boys, executioner’s assistants, crimps, pimps, organ grinders, grooms of the stool, fullers, gentlemen of the road, members of the aristocracy and ladies of the night (to mention but a few) all clamour to press on you their views on string theory, stem cell therapy, plate tectonics or catalytic cracking.
The government has called for Society to have its say on science. I hope your supervisors and lab managers will be patient as you listen to the throngs at the gates of your institutions, and that you will wear extravagent disguises when in public to avoid molestation by the public anxious to press their scientific opinions on you."

On a more serious but less entertaining note, the Science and Society Strategy initiative aims to capture a range of views from the general public, scientists, businesses, media, education and government. It seeks input on three key areas:
* How to improve communication, generate interest, increase participation and convey the relevance of science;
* How to build trust and confidence in scientific research in the public and private sectors; and
* How to inspire young people from diverse backgrounds to become tomorrow's skilled scientists.
In what is believed to be the first website of its type for a Government consultation, an online interactive hub has been established to capture the feedback. It features discussion forums, videos and an interactive consultation document allowing visitors to respond to the entire strategy or to the perspectives of invited scientists, science communicators, broadcasters, policymakers and businesspeople on topics such as science teaching, how to reward good "public engagement" work and how to develop scientific literacy. The consultation will run until 17 October 2008. It is not clear from the website how the responses will be assessed. As well as commenting at the Science and Society Strategy website, you are also very welcome to contribute to the online conversation at Charles Darwin's blog.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 21, 2008
Categories: Policy and Public | Permalink | Comments (1)

On the topic of the ‘data deluge’, Sarah Kemmitt notes at Nature Network that the UK Government has opted for an increasingly used technique (see, for example, Elsevier’s Grand Challenge) to scope ideas for a strategy for how to make best use of interrelated information.
Sarah refers to the British Cabinet Office’s Power of Information Taskforce project ‘Show Us a Better Way’, which is asking for suggestions to develop better ways to publish the vast swathes of non-personal information that the government collects and creates, using the incentive of a competition (here is a BBC article about the initiative). From the Show Us a Better Way website:

Ever been frustrated that you can't find out something that ought to be easy to find? Ever been baffled by league tables or 'performance indicators'? Do you think that better use of public information could improve health, education, justice or society at large?
The UK Government wants to hear your ideas for new products that could improve the way public information is communicated. The Power of Information Taskforce is running a competition on the Government's behalf, and we have a £20,000 prize fund to develop the best ideas to the next level. You can see the type of thing we are are looking for here.
To show they are serious, the Government is making available gigabytes of new or previously invisible public information especially for people to use in this competition.

Sarah is part of the British Library TalkScience team, and is a co-founder of the Nature Network group Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not-working? All are welcome to join the group and contribute to the conversation, in advance of a meeting in September for a focused discussion of the topic.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 09, 2008
Categories: Technical solutions | Permalink | Comments (0)

In its July Editorial Wouldn't you like to know?, Nature Physics (4, 505; 2008) asks how much of the mass of information available online in encyclopaedic form can be trusted. The Editorial discusses various sources: Wikipedia, of course; Citizendium (with its associated Eduzendium); Scholarpedia ; and a brief mention of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has just begun experimenting with user-generated input (although not noted in the Editorial).
Scholarpedia is the most recent of these resources, and says of itself that it "feels and looks like Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Indeed, both are powered by the same program - MediaWiki. Both allow visitors to review and modify articles simply by clicking on the edit this article link." Scholarpedia is said to differ from Wikipedia in that each article is written by an expert (invited or elected by the public); anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information; and has a curator - typically its author -- who is responsible for its content and who has to approve any proposed modifications. The website claims that, by this method, "while the initial authorship and review processes are similar to a print journal so that Scholarpedia articles could be cited, they are not frozen and outdated, but dynamic, subject to an ongoing process of improvement moderated by their curators. This allows Scholarpedia to be up-to-date, yet maintain the highest quality of content."
The Nature Physics verdict? "Expert authorship and curatorship of free online information are indeed welcome. If scientists embrace Scholarpedia, then perhaps the opportunity to make sure that their own favourite area is well represented in its pages — as well as the possibility of citations — will prove sufficient incentive to the hard-pressed experts. The potential is huge, and so is the challenge."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 02, 2008
Categories: Technical solutions | Permalink | Comments (0)