Comments on: Soft peer review? Social software and distributed scientific evaluation http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/ A survival guide for the 21st century researcher Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:37:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SciSurfer: real-time search on journal articles http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-149262 SciSurfer: real-time search on journal articles Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:35:29 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-149262 [...] I’m not sure one can do searches according to popularity just yet on any of these tools, implementing a real-time soft peer review. [...] [...] I’m not sure one can do searches according to popularity just yet on any of these tools, implementing a real-time soft peer review. [...]

]]> By: Tutorial de CiteUlike en Castellano | Universo Abierto http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-149248 Tutorial de CiteUlike en Castellano | Universo Abierto Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:53:53 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-149248 [...] TARABORELLI, D. Soft peer review? Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP 08),  2008. http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific... [...] [...] TARABORELLI, D. Soft peer review? Social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP 08),  2008. http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific... [...]

]]> By: Jake http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-139631 Jake Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:21:52 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-139631 "The obvious reason why collaborative annotation cannot be compared," also SEO companies would exploit annotations to promote websites much like some product reviews. “The obvious reason why collaborative annotation cannot be compared,” also SEO companies would exploit annotations to promote websites much like some product reviews.

]]> By: Silverback http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-139015 Silverback Tue, 10 May 2011 01:16:46 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-139015 There's definitely a lot of value when it comes to social softwares. I think that overall a larger user base creates a more realistic set of results. I see a lot of comments regarding Amazon, I think that as a whole having a large set of users creates a more realistic result than smaller samples (which can have a wider margin of error). There’s definitely a lot of value when it comes to social softwares. I think that overall a larger user base creates a more realistic set of results. I see a lot of comments regarding Amazon, I think that as a whole having a large set of users creates a more realistic result than smaller samples (which can have a wider margin of error).

]]> By: social software and science « Sometimes I listen to myself http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-137640 social software and science « Sometimes I listen to myself Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:43:45 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-137640 [...] software and science By Charles Kiyanda, on December 8th, 2010 I haven’t been through this entire post on academicproductivity.com, but glancing at the first few lines seems interesting. On the subject of science and social [...] [...] software and science By Charles Kiyanda, on December 8th, 2010 I haven’t been through this entire post on academicproductivity.com, but glancing at the first few lines seems interesting. On the subject of science and social [...]

]]> By: Eugen Spierer http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-137587 Eugen Spierer Sun, 28 Nov 2010 22:32:03 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-137587 An analysis of some of the points made in the post has been published on http://explorhetoric.blogspot.com/ Further debate will be much appreciated. Eugen Spierer An analysis of some of the points made in the post has been published on http://explorhetoric.blogspot.com/
Further debate will be much appreciated.

Eugen Spierer

]]> By: » softly review the library? Bibliodox http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-137467 » softly review the library? Bibliodox Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:01:29 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-137467 [...] The debate on the prospects of peer-review in the Internet age and the increasing criticism leveled against the dominant role of impact factor indicators are calling for new measurable criteria to assess scientific quality. Usage-based metrics offer a new avenue to scientific quality assessment but face the same risks as first generation search engines that used unreliable metrics (such as raw traffic data) to estimate content quality. In this article I analyze the contribution that social bookmarking systems can provide to the problem of usage-based metrics for scientific evaluation. I suggest that collaboratively aggregated metadata may help fill the gap between traditional citation-based criteria and raw usage factors. I submit that bottom-up, distributed evaluation models such as those afforded by social bookmarking will challenge more traditional quality assessment models in terms of coverage, efficiency and scalability. Services aggregating user-related quality indicators for online scientific content will come to occupy a key function in the scholarly communication system. [...] [...] The debate on the prospects of peer-review in the Internet age and the increasing criticism leveled against the dominant role of impact factor indicators are calling for new measurable criteria to assess scientific quality. Usage-based metrics offer a new avenue to scientific quality assessment but face the same risks as first generation search engines that used unreliable metrics (such as raw traffic data) to estimate content quality. In this article I analyze the contribution that social bookmarking systems can provide to the problem of usage-based metrics for scientific evaluation. I suggest that collaboratively aggregated metadata may help fill the gap between traditional citation-based criteria and raw usage factors. I submit that bottom-up, distributed evaluation models such as those afforded by social bookmarking will challenge more traditional quality assessment models in terms of coverage, efficiency and scalability. Services aggregating user-related quality indicators for online scientific content will come to occupy a key function in the scholarly communication system. [...]

]]> By: Another researcher index? ReaderMeter looks to answer with Mendeley | Mendeley Blog http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-136774 Another researcher index? ReaderMeter looks to answer with Mendeley | Mendeley Blog Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:01:50 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-136774 [...] of this blog are not new to my ramblings on soft peer review, social metrics and post-publication impact [...] [...] of this blog are not new to my ramblings on soft peer review, social metrics and post-publication impact [...]

]]> By: Academic Productivity » ReaderMeter: Crowdsourcing research impact http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-136770 Academic Productivity » ReaderMeter: Crowdsourcing research impact Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:00:58 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-136770 [...] of this blog are not new to my ramblings on soft peer review, social metrics and post-publication impact [...] [...] of this blog are not new to my ramblings on soft peer review, social metrics and post-publication impact [...]

]]> By: sazkove kancelare http://www.academicproductivity.com/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/comment-page-2/#comment-124146 sazkove kancelare Sun, 23 May 2010 18:38:23 +0000 http://www.academicproductivity.com/blog/2007/soft-peer-review-social-software-and-distributed-scientific-evaluation/#comment-124146 think amazon.com is actually the model that needs to be examined, because of its recent implementations of RealName status. Looking at amazon.com, one will occasionally see eminent personae reviewing articles – basically bringing the credibility of hard reviews to what is normally a ’soft review’ format. think amazon.com is actually the model that needs to be examined, because of its recent implementations of RealName status. Looking at amazon.com, one will occasionally see eminent personae reviewing articles – basically bringing the credibility of hard reviews to what is normally a ’soft review’ format.

]]>