iMechanica - Review papers - Comments

having no harmony is main issue of a little richer third world!

RoozbehSanaei — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:14:59 -0400

I have worked as a researchers in thirld world for 4 years!.

may be my country was a little richer than south africa!

although accessiblity to papers may be one problem in thirld world. papers are accessible finally with hardship.

Disperse work is main problem of working in third world. many people work in third world. but it is not possible to fight many problems like diseases personally, this needs harmony between many researchers.there is a need for having a network to find out what others has done and what is needed.more easily than what is already exists. i know it is possible with good review. but good review is expensive and time consuming. many people have to publish many papers to survive!. same idea "dynamic review papers" can help them also. to find out what has done, and what is needed now.

Implications of closed and expensive publishing practices

Biswajit Banerjee — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:57:26 -0400

Keeping publications closed and expensive may have severe implications. See the following paper:

Excluding the poor from accessing biomedical literature: A rights
violation that impedes global health by Gavin Yamey

Researchers in mechanics can afford not to care about such issues because of the limited impact (factor?) of the field. But can other, more important, fields of study?

-- Biswajit

A subject which could attract a lot of interest is "Viagra"

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:05:12 -0400

A subject on which not many of us are working, so that it would be good to start a wiki review as it has potentially high impact and huge market is:

Viagra and Mechanics --- Watermelon May Have Viagra-effect

Eric, Mike, share of each author in WIKI paper profits?

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:29:27 -0400

PLOS ONE is very famous!. number of these systems are too much and i think they need even some sort of unification!. if you like Wiki-Research papers, have you any strict idea about share of each author in profits of wiki-research papers. my idea is only wiki-review papers which authors put description of their own papers in them, the profit is introducting paper to public. (some sort of advertising).

A lot of what we discussed is already out there!

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:11:29 -0400

Why Publish in PLoS ONE?

Not yet in engineering but.....

Lets start a work, others has finished GOOD books in wiki!

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:44:59 -0400

i have found a very nice book about Proteomics in Wiki-books, it
has many visitors and it is first one when you search "proteomics + drug discovery" in Google!

I think BOOK CHAPTERS are just like review
papers!.

I dont like to change the world revolutionary, i prefer
to help the people to change it evolutionary!.

I think there are already systems for wiki-publishing, there is
no need to to build a new extra one. Only thing we should do is to
absorb more people to a ONE UNITED wiki-system and start the work as soon as possible. and prevent to work on different
systems. it contradict with strategy of success of wikipedia.

I am going to start a new book about "PROTEIN ENGINEERING" in
wikipedia, despite my poor english. I hope others in that field help me .

notice there is NOTHING in engineering yet... imechanica?

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:24:40 -0400

Maybe the wiki experiment for imechanica could be within wikia?

Wikia has already a place for academic publications: ACADEMICA!

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:21:47 -0400

http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Main Page
From Academic Publishing Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to the Academic Publishing Wiki! This
project is meant to give people with original ideas a means of
obtaining peer review and constructive criticism, and also to publish
these ideas in wiki format for the free use and benefit of others.
Works can first be placed in wiki format as an initial draft and marked for inclusion in the critical peer review process. With successful passage through this stage, the article can then be included in an academic journal fitting of it. Questions? FAQ | Wiki publishing

The Academic Publishing Wiki is very new and needs your help. See Current events for existing projects and add more. You can take a short guided tour of this wiki.

Active Journals

Journals can relate to any academic field, and are not limited to
the following. Please feel free to add more as you feel is appropriate.
Full list of journals. Instructions for starting a new journal.
On this wiki:

Yours could be here!

On other Wikia sites:

Policy and suggestions

There is no "neutral point of view" policy here. However, keep
in mind that a reasonable argument is more effective, and that a
stronger point of view may both appear less professional and alienate
some readers.
It is strongly recommended that you provide a proper bibliography, and use footnotes to reference quotes. An available system for references.
Keep in mind that any work posted here is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Do not plagiarize.

Getting started: rough drafts

Read the Author guidelines.
Create a wiki page for your new article. Create Links and Pages
Add the preliminary draft template to your article. Using templates
Add the content of your article to the wiki page you created for your article. Need help with wiki?

NOTE: You can browse the articles that are currently in the preliminary drafts category.

Peer Review

You can browse articles that are currently available for peer review. Note: some wiki journals do not list their articles in this generic list of peer review targets.

Retrieved from "http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page"

Categories: Main | Wiki Academic Publishing

Sorry, I still do not understand: without examples I am lost!

Mike Ciavarella — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:56:38 -0400

Eric

when you have time, please respond more. You don't need to do it today!

mike

More on writing scientific articles in Wikipedia for Bijwait

Mike Ciavarella — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:53:37 -0400

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PV_of_a_Science_of_Nature_editor

Bijwait, again, I am not sure we cannot write original articles in Wikipedia!

PV of a Science of Nature editor
From Meta

Jump to: navigation, search

Some
Wikipedians think that scientific articles on Wikipedia should be
written according to "Point of View of a Science or Nature editor", and
not strict "Neutral Point Of View". Both these points of view are
biased. PVSNE is biased towards science and facts; strict NPOV is biased towards political neutrality and political correctness.

Scientific articles make big portion of every encyclopedia. If "strict" rules of neutral point of view were followed, such articles would be very hard to use. Most people reading article Earth
don't care about people claiming it's flat, most people reading about
World War II don't care about it being punishment for sins of humanity
and most people reading article Evolution don't care about creationism, "humanity was created by aliens" and other non-scientific theories. Therefore strict NPOV must be limited if it conflicts with usability or facts.

Maybe controversial issues should have a front page listing the
pages that describe the different points of view that exist about them,
science being among them. Even within science there sometimes are
competing theories about certain phenomena.

So we could have: Origin of life theory

Science: Evolution
Religion: Creationism

what do you think?

I think this POV has been discussed to death on talk:creationism
and that a strictly biased POV should not become wikipedia policy. I
for one would consider forking the pedia, to create an effort which
accommodates various POV, before I'd let this happen.

You might or might not know that the stated Wikipedia policy has been from the beginning the neutral point of view. I, and I imagine Jimbo
as well as most participants in Wikipedia, are no more seriously
considering changing this than we are changing the fact that this is an
encyclopedia. This is one of the constraints on a successful
international, collaborative encyclopedia.

We cannot reasonably expect people to follow a policy that they
don't understand, however, and this policy is really very easy to
misunderstand. It does not imply any controversial positions about
epistemology or metaphysics; it asks (to put it rather simply) that we
do our very best to represent competing points of views fairly, and
that we do not make the article espouse some "official Wikipedia view."
We "go meta" whenever there is any significant dispute, and describe
the dispute. Now, if you don't want to call what we ask "neutrality" or
"nonbias," then call it "schmeutrality" or whatever you like.

SNPOV is biased towards political neutrality and political correctness.

This is just false and represents a simple misunderstanding of what
the policy says. The only thing that the nonbias policy is biased in
favor of is the idea that it is possible to state competing views
fairly within the same article, within some very reasonable constraints
on what is to be considered fair.

If you want to get into a debate about the policy, it would be great
if you would give a concise summary of the arguments that have been
raised against the neutral point of view. I would be only too happy to
reply to help develop a draft and to develop replies. I am firmly
persuaded that very many objections to a nonbias policy stem from a
failure to understand it properly. I'm looking for something similar to
what was done on Wikipedia subpages pros and cons. --LMS

See also : Wikipedia commentary

Test dynamic review articles - editing

ericmock — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:14:18 -0400

If you log into the test site (see above for URL) you can now edit pages (and see the source) by logging in as (user: imechanica, pw: rox). Dynamic equation generation seems to be broken (changing the equation source should automatically produce and cache a new equation graphic) and I don't have time now to track it down.

SolidMechanics.org

ericmock — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:06:38 -0400

The page contents are simple dumps from MS Word (i.e. Save As... HTML). You can tell by looking at the page source (and seeing the spaghetti code Word produces or the <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> tag). It looks like the menus basically use a standard library:

Wiki Equations

ericmock — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:58:36 -0400

Mike,

I am very familiar with all the wiki technologies. You have been able to add basic equations for many years. However, the typesetting in connection with the HTML is horrible (i.e. try to make a nice looking in-line equation). One (of many) things I did was figure out how to set the baseline correct. I've been waiting five years for MathML to get support in browsers and I've quit waiting. Honestly, I think SVG will likely be what gets used for equations in the future. But SVG support is still very spotty. The <canvas> tag may also be useful as soon as MS includes it in IE.

Other added features: equation and figure numbering, automatically generated bibliographies, automatically updating cross-referencing. Basically, things LaTeX users take for granted but are not included in MediaWiki. Also, hover your mouse over an equation number....

I confirm I have found this policy: however ...

Mike Ciavarella — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:39:52 -0400

I have found the policy you refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NORN

However, I am doubtful that the meaning is really about research articles.

I think it rather concerns the problem of speculations, and unproven statements. But if one wanted to write a paper, are you sure it would be not accepted???

This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources
and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate
that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable
sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are neutral point of view (NPOV) and verifiability
(V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material
that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other,
they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and
editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

If you have questions about particular examples of OR, or you need
help because someone has accused you of posting OR, please see the No original research noticeboard (WP:NORN).

It would seem your software has a lot of potential...

Mike Ciavarella — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:32:49 -0400

Eric, are you saying your software is the ONLY one to write equations in Wiki-style? Then you should think of it as big value, before you embark into a NSF proposal. Who will own the IPR?

However, if I search http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Formula

I find that "Displaying a formula is possible", and indeed MediaWiki Handbook: Contents, Readers, Editors, Moderators, System admins +/-

MediaWiki uses a subset of TeX markup, including some extensions from LaTeX and AMSLaTeX, for mathematical formulae. It generates either PNG images or simple HTML markup, depending on user preferences
and the complexity of the expression. In the future, as more browsers
are smarter, it will be able to generate enhanced HTML or even MathML in many cases. (See blahtex for information about current work on adding MathML support.)

More precisely, MediaWiki filters the markup through Texvc, which in turn passes the commands to TeX for the actual rendering. Thus, only a limited part of the full TeX language is supported; see below for details.

To have math rendered, you have to set $wgUseTeX = true; in LocalSettings.php.

So what is exactly your contribution?

Incidentally, which technology uses http://solidmechanics.org/ ?

Review papers

RoozbehSanaei — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:15:10 -0400

One of the most important things every researcher does in the beginning of his introduction to a topic is review process. Most helpful papers in this regard are review papers. Review papers are important. They are primary and best way to understand the value of a work for the societyto award and grant. They help researchers to find out needs of people who use our research and goal functions of scientific society. Help researchers to find out good topics and also good solutions. And the final effect of a research on the society.

But there is big problem in this good. Good review is too hard and time-consuming. One time the lack of enough resources was the problem of researchers, now the main problem for newcomers and evaluators is review papers are not complete! For example, imagine a researcher who likes to do something with Quantum Dots without background. Or find someone who did best thing in this regard without relying to citations or others. And sometimes don’t know special keywords and famous persons. If we search “QUANTUM DOT” in Scholar.Google.com only 15000 papers have it in their TITLE! Then there is no way for a beginner to just read highly cited ones. Or those ones who have general Titles. Or those who written by highly cited one!.

By this way sometimes new and novel ideas will forget and the progress become slow. In the internet era there should be a way to solve such problems. I think WIKI-STYLE REVIEW PAPERS could be a solution. What is the advantage of wiki-pedia to GOOGLE? It offers more classified and organized version of information than Google does. If we see a review papers as a network of keywords and papers. I think there are more advanced ways to manage such network. More than what current Wikipedia offers. Wiki-style is first and easiest solution.