iMechanica - Elsevier - Comments

Another strike against Elsevier

Biswajit Banerjee — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:19:05 -0500

" El Naschie is editor in chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. This journal is published by Elsevier, one of the biggest players in the science publishing business.

But here’s where things get interesting: this journal also lists 322 papers with El Naschie as an author!"

....

" Together with the rate at which El Naschie is publishing these papers in his own journal, the bizarre blend of fashionable buzzwords in their titles instantly made me suspicious. To see if my suspicions were correct, I examined some.

Let’s look at just one: ‘Anomalies free E-infinity from von Neumann’s continuous geometry’.

This paper consists of undisciplined numerology larded with impressive buzzwords. It starts with a reference to von Neumann’s continuous geometries and the work of Alain Connes, but it makes no use of these ideas. ‘E-infinity’ is apparently the name of Naschie’s ‘theory’, but he doesn’t describe this theory. In short, the title and abstract have little to do with the actual content of the paper."

How common is that sort of thing in our field?

-- Biswajit

Google rank of many webpages

RoozbehSanaei — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:34:53 -0400

blank_page

Google: 10/10

Nature.Com, Sciencemag.org: 9/10

Mit, Harvard, JHU, DUKE, caltech, stanford Webpages : 9/10

NUS,
Toronto webpages: 8/10

Wikipedia : 8/10

Wikimedia CommonsOpenwetware: 7/10

WIkitionary, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiversity :
5/10

PlosOne: 7/10

Wikispecies, MetaWiki: 6/10

Scholar.google.com:6/10!

Imechanica, Biowww.net: 5/10

Scientific American: 5/10

The google nemesis book is

Tom.Cutler — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:09:31 -0400

The google nemesis book is completely unique and
insightful step-by-step method for aspiring affiliates to promote
products via Google Adwords. There is no other manual like this on the
marketplace and this information will prove to be invaluable for
affiliates of all skill levels.

Google just have good POI!. Google relevancy is not so high!

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:12:03 -0400

We can define a ratio in this regard "Popularity on Investment". Just like molecular biology in comparision with Acoustics!. Or even Many Hollywood stars in comparison with others.
Google work has good POI in comparison with Elsevier. The reason is its Nature, It is a keyword based search motor, i don’t know the story of success of Google to Yahoo! and MSN but all search motors have much popularity in comparison with what they offer us. I have many problems with Keyword based search motors like Google, relevance is not so good. And google is not so intelligent. I know this is not possible with current technology.
try to find IMECHANICA with "mechanical engineers forum", it may not be too hard to find imechanica you can just use "Mechanics Forum" instead.
how about more professional topics that people dont know what keywords others use?
people use papers who have more familiar keywords!.
Have you heard about GOOGLE Spies!. Making a website popular in google without real reason!. Advertisers use this inefficiencies too much.
I can’t find what I need easily. I found too much unrelated to what I don’t want and a little related to what I want.
Another thing about Google is its investment on advertising, advertising is a money maker industry, there is no special way to check its performance, and people pay for it because they know it is important but they have not any way measure the success easily. (number of hits is not a good measure, have you recieved one of that SPAMS about how to become rich!!!)

Big update with corrections: Elsevier has sold the arm business

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:36:35 -0400

Big update: 22 June 2008

dear Zhigangvery good news: Reed Elsevier sells defence exhibitions Thursday May 29, 2008 !!

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

yes, and Harvard Library is moving....

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:39:36 -0400

See

Harvard to collect, disseminate scholarly articles for faculty

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and director Library

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:59:47 -0400

Robert Darnton named Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and director of the University Library

Robert Darnton, currently the Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of European
History at Princeton University, will become Carl H. Pforzheimer
University Professor and director of the Harvard University Library,
effective July 1, 2007, Provost Steven E. Hyman announced today (May
22).

An alumnus of Harvard College and Harvard’s Society of Fellows, a
former Rhodes Scholar and MacArthur Fellow, and Chevalier of France’s
Légion D’Honneur, Darnton is an internationally recognized scholar on
the history of the book and the literary world of Enlightenment France.
Darnton will succeed Professor Sidney Verba, who announced his
retirement last September after having served as library director for
23 years.

“Robert Darnton is a scholar of exceptional creativity and distinction
whose intellectual interests are ideally suited for the leadership of
one of the world’s great libraries,” said Hyman. “He has been a pioneer
in the pursuit of history ‘from below,’ moving beyond the formal
thought of a period to reconstruct the world view of whole societies or
large groups of people by using the tools of anthropology and examining
alternative writings and means of communication. Of particular
significance for this new role, Darnton is a creator of the field known
as the ‘history of the book,’ as well as an entrepreneur in exploring
electronic books, Web publishing, and other forms of new media.”

“We are truly fortunate that Bob Darnton has decided to return to
Harvard,” said President-elect Drew G. Faust. “Bob is one of the most
distinguished historians working today. His deep engagement with the
history of the creation and dissemination of information will provide
him with unparalleled insight as he grapples with the challenges and
opportunities facing the Harvard libraries in the years ahead. I look
forward to working with Bob in this area of mutual passion and
interest.”

“I feel greatly honored to become Carl H. Pforzheimer University
Professor and director of the University Library — honored and awed,
because Harvard has the greatest library system of any university in
the world, one that began in 1638 with the 400 books of John Harvard’s
library and now includes nearly 16 million volumes in more than 80
separate libraries run by a staff of over 1,200, including over 400
librarians,” Darnton said. “The Harvard University Library is one of
the country’s greatest intellectual assets, but it is enormously
complex and expensive. It must maintain its leadership while helping to
shape the new information society of the 21st century.

“Having, as a historian, studied the world of books in the distant
past, I now have an opportunity to do something for the cause of books
and book learning in the present,” Darnton continued. “And I want to
help find a way in which the new and the old media can reinforce each
other, strengthening and transforming the world of learning.”

“The rapid transition of libraries requires a leader with a great deal
of range, as well as strong support from the University in fundraising
and in the allocation of resources essential to the library’s mission,”
said Hyman, who led the search for the library director. “Given the
importance of the Harvard library as an international resource for
teachers and scholars, I am pleased to pledge that support to a
director who brings such distinction and passion to this undertaking.”

Over the years, Harvard’s library system has undergone considerable
growth and transition. President A. Lawrence Lowell appointed the first
director of the Harvard University Library in 1909. In 1977, during his
first tenure as president, Derek Bok created an ad hoc committee to
review the administration of the University libraries and create a more
coordinated system. Today, almost 30 years after that committee issued
its report, the Harvard libraries, coordinated by a central staff, are
responsible for preservation, digital initiatives, off-site storage,
and supporting teaching and research within the University.

Darnton’s appointment follows a six-month search led by Hyman and
assisted by a search advisory committee of 12 individuals, including
nine faculty members from a range of disciplines, the librarians of
Harvard College and the Law School, and the University’s Chief
Information Officer. The committee met regularly throughout the search
and received input from a wide range of individuals and groups engaged
with the Harvard libraries.

Darnton is the author of numerous books and articles. His latest book
is “George Washington’s False Teeth: An Unconventional Guide to the
Eighteenth Century” (2003), and he is currently completing a book on
the art and politics of slander in the 18th century. His earlier books
include “Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France” (1968),
“The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the
Encyclopédie” (1979), “The Literary Underground of the Old Regime”
(1982), “The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural
History” (1984), “The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural
History” (1989), “Revolution in Print: the Press in France 1775-1800”
(1989, Daniel Roche co-editor), “Edition et sédition” (1991, written in
French, not available in English), which won the French Prix Médicis,
“Berlin Journal, 1989-1990” (1991), and “The Forbidden Best-Sellers of
Prerevolutionary France” (1995), which won the National Book Critics
Circle Award

Darnton is a graduate of Harvard (A.B., 1960) and Oxford (B. Phil.,
1962; D.Phil., 1964), where he was a Rhodes Scholar. After a brief
stint as a reporter for The New York Times, he became a junior fellow
in the Society of Fellows at Harvard. He began teaching in 1968 at
Princeton, where he now is the Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of
European History and directs the Center for the Study of Books and
Media.

He has been the recipient of the Leo Gershoy Prize of the American
Historical Association (for “The Business of Enlightenment”), a
MacArthur Fellowship (1982-87), the Los Angeles Times Book Prize (for
“The Great Cat Massacre”), Princeton University’s Behrman Humanities
Award (1987), the Gutenberg Prize (2004), and the American Printing
History Association Prize (2005). In 1999, Darnton was named a
Chevalier of the Légion d’Honneur, the highest award given by the
French government, in recognition of his work.

Darnton has also served as president of the International Society
for Eighteenth-Century Studies (1987-91) and of the American Historical
Association (1999). He has been elected a fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the
British Academy, the Academia Europaea, and the Académie Royale de
Langue et de Littérature Françaises of Belgium. He has been a visiting
professor or fellow at many universities and institutes for advanced
study, and his outside activities include service as a trustee of the
New York Public Library and the Oxford University Press (USA).

Harvard to collect, disseminate scholarly articles for faculty

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:23:51 -0400

I wonder if Zhigang and Imechanica know of this:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/02.14/99-fasvote.html

Harvard to collect, disseminate scholarly articles for faculty
Legislation designed to allow greater worldwide access

By Robert Mitchell

FAS Communications

In a move to disseminate faculty research and scholarship more broadly,
the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) voted Tuesday (Feb. 12) to give
the University a worldwide license to make each faculty member’s
scholarly articles available and to exercise the copyright in the
articles, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit.

In proposing the legislation, Stuart M. Shieber, a professor at FAS,
said, “There is no question that scholarly journals have historically
allowed scholars to distribute their research to audiences around the
world. But, the scholarly publishing system has become far more
restrictive than it need be. Many publishers will not even allow
scholars to use and distribute their own work. And, the cost of
journals has risen to such astronomical levels that many institutions
and individuals have cancelled subscriptions, further reducing the
circulation of scholars’ works.

“This is a large and very important step for scholars throughout the
country. It should be a very powerful message to the academic community
that we want and should have more control over how our work is used and
disseminated,” added Shieber, James O. Welch Jr. and Virginia B. Welch
Professor of Computer Science.

“The goal of university research is the creation, dissemination, and
preservation of knowledge. At Harvard, where so much of our research is
of global significance, we have an essential responsibility to
distribute the fruits of our scholarship as widely as possible,” said
Provost Steven E. Hyman. “Today's action in the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences will promote free and open access to significant, ongoing
research. It is a first step in the creation of an open-access
environment for current research that may one day provide the widest
possible dissemination of Harvard's distinguished Faculties' work.”

Harvard will take advantage of the license by hosting FAS faculty
members’ scholarly articles in an open-access repository, making them
available worldwide for free. The faculty member will retain the
copyright of the article, subject to the University’s license. The
repository contents can be made widely available to the public through
such search engines such as Google Scholar. Faculty members may request
a waiver of the license for particular articles where this is
preferable. The new legislation does not apply to articles completed
before its adoption.

The repository, which will be supported and maintained by Harvard
University, will allow scholars and the general public from around the
world access to scholarly works of FAS faculty. This access will
benefit scholars at all research institutions, which have seen their
ability to maintain subscriptions to a full range of scholarly journals
seriously compromised over the past few years. Research centers in
poorer countries have been especially harmed by the access limitations
caused by the high cost of many journals, Shieber pointed out.

“Today’s vote in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,” said Robert
Darnton, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and director of the
University Library, “addresses an issue that is of great concern to all
of the Faculties of the University. All of us face the same problems
and all of us can envision the public benefits of open access. Harvard
Medical School, for example, is already working with its faculty to
comply with a congressional mandate that articles based on funding from
the National Institutes of Health be openly accessible through PubMed
Central. By working, as individual faculties and together as a single
University, we can all promote the free communication of knowledge”

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

Discussion on Slashdot

Mike Graham — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:09:23 -0400

There is currently a discussion about whether academic journals are obsolete on the popular technology news and information site Slashdot . I thought it might be interesting to the same people who are interested in this thread.

Why Google SCHOLAR will stop this oligopoly of publishers

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:21:25 -0400

http://imechanica.org/node/3265
Why Google SCHOLAR will stop this oligopoly of publishers

I agree very much with you, and indeed this is what I said

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:31:17 -0400

See

PROPOSALS FOR IMECHANICA Submitted by Mike Ciavarella on Sat, 2008-04-05 16:45.

Hello imechanica users: I
launch a few ideas. Can we improve imechanica stealing ideas from
successful web systems like google, amazon, wikipedia, myspace,
youtube? Taking the best of the various worlds to improve our
imechanica?

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

Wiki-Style review papers high light non peer-reviewed ideas!

RoozbehSanaei — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:17:55 -0400

Wiki-Style review papers can
speed up science progress very much.

I think one of the important reasons
of much citation to many classical papers and methods is their popularity. When
a new researcher wants to start a scientific work he should review many papers
and see which methods, materials and models are better by comparing many
factors. But number of developed methods, materials and models are more than
what an ordinary person can read. And much of them are not well developed or
they are not good anyway. Many researchers have to finish their entire work in a
limited time. Then they have to don’t pay so much attention to this selection
and start they work as soon as possible by relying on more cited papers. And in
other side most researchers tend to base their work on more popular things.

Most of researchers start their
work with reading review papers who comprise advantages and disadvantages of
different methods and …, but even good reviewers had not so much information and
enough time to get information in order to categorize and comprise all of the
methods and ways available and they adequate to most popular methods. Then many
new methods and much availability may die in this process. (Even if they be published
even in good journals).

Wiki-Style Review papers can speed
up research communications very much and permit new ideas to burgeon. Every
author can add his paper to this review and in other side he knows his paper better
than anybody else. This is easier and less time consuming than what a one
person can do in a review process. Also authors tend to introduce their works
to public then will do it.

Attaching a FORUM to each
review paper can be a good idea too, I have read many comments in IMECHANICA that
I could not read like them in any book at least in such a short time. Authors
can get feedback of their readers by means of these forums to make better works
in future. (Just like AMAZON books). And many of comments and nice views can add to
main body of review by others who see these comments beneficial.

The wiki-style articles may be more ideal in this time
because of profits researchers gain by publishing ISI papers in well indexed
journals. But wiki-style review papers need not paying so much time for each
person and finally lead to a brilliant document for society. Also authors tend to introduce their works to
public then will work on it.

More data confirming the old system of "peer review" is empiric

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:51:18 -0400

Check my updates on

My letter of resignation from the board of International Journal of Solids and Structures
http://imechanica.org/node/3210

I ADD SOME CURIOUS STATISTICS ABOUT IJSS AND IntJFAT BOARDS, SUGGESTING THE EDITORS SURPRISINGLY NOT EVEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RANKING, AND THE REAL SUPERSTARS ARE BELYTSCHO AND SUO FOR IJSS, AND RITCHIE AND MURAKAMI FOR IntJFat. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "PEERS" THEN WITH SUCH A DILUTED AND DIVERSE RANGE OF PEOPLE IN THE BOARD?

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

WIKINOMICS --- Why traditional papers need to be changed

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:44:26 -0400

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

Leonardo da Vinci the precursor of Publish AND Perish

Mike Ciavarella — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:03:25 -0400

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