LiquidPub Project: Scientific Publications meet the Web, a project from University of Trento

This was a project funded, by Fabio Casati, formerly at HP, now dean of ICT in Trento, Italy

see also PUBLISH AND PERISH: WHY THE CURRENT PUBLICATIONAND REVIEW MODEL IS KILLING RESEARCH AND WASTING YOUR MONEY

 
see 
http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00001086/01/066.pdf

A few first lines:-

 The research world, and specifically the academic world, is centered around the notion
of publication as the basic mean to disseminate results, foster interaction among
communities, and achieve international recognition (and career advancement).
Publications are done in conferences or journals, and are usually reviewed by a
committee of experts, also referred as “peers”. Typically, each paper is reviewed by 3 or
4 reviewers. The “best” papers among all the submitted ones are then accepted for
publication in the journal or in the conference proceedings. In the computer science
area, people typically publishes a dozen paper per year, and submit a little more than
that (not all papers are accepted the first time around). Acceptance rates for
conferences are often around 20% or lower1.

There are three drivers behind this model:

1. Disseminate ideas and make them visible. Through publication and review,
papers are made known to colleagues, and the review process is supposed to
ensure that the best papers are more visible, so that researchers know where to
go (good journals and conferences) if they want to read literature on certain
topics. Publications also have legal implications as they “timestamp” work and
ideas.

2. Get credit, recognition. Having papers accepted at prestigious conferences and
journals is a way to prove (in theory) that the work is valuable. This in turn is a
major criterion to determine career advancement.

3. Meeting and networking. Publications and conference participation leads to
exchange of ideas with colleagues, and to networking. Conferences are also very
useful for students to come and learn how the research community operates.
Highly Inefficient Publishing Process. This model is incredibly inefficient under every
perspective, and results in a colossal waste of public funding, and forces researchers
worldwide to waste countless hours that could be devoted to better research (or to have
fun with family and friends). It is a system deeply rooted in the past, oblivious to the
advent of the Web and related new forms of communication, information sharing, social
networking and reputation. Here are some problems with the current state of affairs:

..... 

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

The paper by Casati et al is from active, young and brilliant researchers.

Contrast that with this oen commissioned and funded by the Publishing Research Consortium (http://www.publishingresearch.net/) like Elsevier and others (the paper is then  review to go to the Elsevier Editors journal http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorshome.editors to calm down potential criticism

http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-fina...

The report is very long and a little boring if I can say, but the CLEVER TRICK to avoid serious criticism, is that the publishers took VERY SENIOR people, who are unlikely to be willing a revolution!!

Read the summary:

Peer review is seen as an essential component of scholarly communication, the mechanism that facilitates the publication of
primary research in academic journals. Although sometimes thought of as an essential part of the journal, it is only since the
second world war that peer review has been institutionalised in the form we know it today. More recently it has come under
criticism on a number of fronts: it has been said that it is unreliable, unfair and fails to validate or authenticate; that it is
unstandardised and idiosyncratic; that its secrecy leads to irresponsibility on the part of reviewers; that it stifles innovation;
that it causes delay in publication; and so on. Perhaps the strongest criticism is that there is a lack of evidence that peer
review actually works, and a lack of evidence to indicate whether the documented failings are rare exceptions or the tip of an
iceberg.
The survey reported here does not attempt directly to address the question of whether or not peer review works, but instead
looks in detail at the experiences and perceptions of a large group of mostly senior authors, reviewers and editors (there is of
course considerable overlap between these groups). Respondents were spread by region and by field of research broadly in
line with the universe of authors publishing in the journals in the Thomson Scientific database, which covers the leading peer
reviewed journals. The survey presents its findings in two broad areas: attitudes to peer review and current practices in peer
review.

Read also towards the end 

The Dissatisfied group
While the large majority of respondents expressed themselves satisfied with peer review system used by scholarly journals, a
minority (12%) said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, referred to as the Dissatisfied group in this report. It is
interesting to ask what we can say about this group.
In terms of demographics, there are relatively few differences from the average. There were no significant differences by age,
gender, type of organisation or position (seniority). By region, they were more somewhat likely to be in the Anglophone region
or USA/Canada, and less likely to be in Asia or the Rest of world. Looking at field of research, they were most likely to be in
HSS, and least likely in Physical sciences/engineering.
In terms of their own experience of peer review, this group reported that the peer review of their last published paper took
significantly longer than average (about 110 days compared to 80), and they were more likely to be dissatisfied with the
length of time involved (65% disagreed it was satisfactory compared to 38% agreeing overall). The Dissatisfied group
tended to be somewhat less likely to report that peer review had improved their last published paper, and likely to give lower
scores to the improvements they did report. We cannot say if there is a causal relationship; that is, is this group dissatisfied

with peer review because they have experienced longer times and less personal benefit on their own papers, or does their
dissatisfaction arise from other causes and then lead them to give less positive scores?
Looking at their attitudes towards peer review, they held consistently less positive views insofar as they were more likely to
agree that peer review needs a complete overhaul, or that it is completely unnecessary and that it is holding back scientific
communication. Similarly they were less likely to agree the current system was the best we can achieve, or that scientific
communication is greatly helped by peer review, or that without PR there is no control in scientific communication. They were
less likely than average to agree that peer review was effective on all the objectives proposed.
In terms of alternative approaches to peer review, the Dissatisfied group were more likely to agree that open and postpublication
review were effective. They were also more likely to agree that post-publication review would be a useful
supplement to formal review, that it would relieve the load on reviewers, and that it could offer an equally powerful alternative;
and they were less likely to agree it would encourage instant reactions, that readers would be unwilling to offer criticism for
fear of offending, and that they would be less likely to submit themselves to a journal using it.

 michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

If Elsevier reacted so brutally to my criticisms, it means that even a single scientist can do a lot against their interests.

I am flattered, but also surprised to have been forced to resign 

http://imechanica.org/node/3210

A more open company should have discussed this more at length.  In the long terms, these are mistakes....

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

Are some ways of measuring scientific quality better than others? Sune Lehmann, Andrew D. Jackson and
Benny E. Lautrup analyse the reliability of commonly used methods for comparing citation records.

 Some interesting extracts

Unfortunately, the potential benefits of
careful citation analyses are overshadowed
by their harmful misuse. Institutions have a
misguided sense of the fairness of decisions
reached by algorithm, and unable to measure
what they want to maximize (quality), institutions
will maximize what they can measure.
Decisions will continue
to be made using measures
of quality that either ignore
citation data entirely (such
as frequency of publication)
or rely on data sets of insufficient
quality.

For their part, scientists should insist that
their institutions disclose their uses of citation
data, making both data and the methods used
for data analysis available for scrutiny. In the
meantime, we shall have to continue to do
things the old-fashioned way and actually read
the papers.

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

See my other post 

Leonardo da Vinci the precursor of Publish AND Perish ---- not Publish OR Perish -- the present model is dead!

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

I am getting more and more convinced that traditional papers, the review process, the "mafia" that is behind every journal, the profit of publishers, all this NEEDS to be changed.

And is changing.  Old Institutes, even Harvard, are of course a good system, especially as they collect HUGE amounts of money.  But they correspond to MICROSOFT, EXXON oil, etc.  in short, traditional big companies/Institutions.  They are slow.  And closed circles.

Imechanica, the ideas from Eric, LIQUIDPUB, they are all ideas to renovate this.

We can try create google groups for subjects we like before
embarking into a web site. Maybe the future of a paper is a WEB site.  Each paper a web site. That's it. The end of profit of Elsevier and other publishing companies in the 9 Billion business.

Good papers/Web sites will make some money. 

Funding will be allocated to people able to create VIRTUAL organizations, not Harvard nor Caltech nor other places who need to deplace people.   What about good people in Kazakistan?  Why making all the effort to move for a quick idea?

The future is more of
social networks which make revolution by running ligth but with sheer amount
of people -- wikipedia, linux, google, etc.
 

 Read :  http://www.wikinomics.com/

What is "Wikinomics"?

In the last few years, traditional collaboration—in a meeting
room, a conference call, even a convention center—has been superceded by
collaborations on an astronomical scale.

Today, encyclopedias, jetliners, operating systems, mutual
funds, and many other items are being created by teams numbering in the
thousands or even millions. While some leaders fear the heaving growth of these
massive online communities, Wikinomics explains how to prosper in a
world where new communications technologies are democratizing the creation of
value. Anyone who wants to understand the major forces revolutionizing business
today should consider Wikinomics their survival kit. Find out more >>

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it