DOCSLIB.ORG

The Political Methodologist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Political Methodologist The Political Methodologist Newsletter of the Political Methodology Section American Political Science Association Volume 23, Number 1, Fall 2015 Editor: Associate Editors: Justin Esarey, Rice University Randolph T. Stevenson, Rice University [email protected] [email protected] Editorial Assistant: Ahra Wu, Rice University Rick K. Wilson, Rice University [email protected] [email protected] Contents eight political scientists comment on their experiences as au- thors, reviewers, and/or editors dealing with the scientific Notes from the Editors 1 peer review process and (in some cases) offer suggestions to improve that process. Our contributions come from authors Special Issue on Peer Review 2 at very different levels of rank and subfield specialization Justin Esarey: Introduction to the Special Issue / in the discipline and consequently represent a diversity of Acceptance Rates and the Aesthetics of Peer viewpoints within political methodology. Review . .2 Additionally, some of the contributors to this issue will Brendan Nyhan: A Checklist Manifesto for Peer participate in an online roundtable discussion on March Review . .4 18th at 12:00 noon (Eastern time) as a part of the Interna- Danilo Freire: Peering at Open Peer Review . .6 tional Methods Colloquium. If you want to add your voice Thomas J. Leeper: The Multiple Routes to Cred- to this discussion, we encourage you to join the roundtable ibility . 11 audience! Participation in the roundtable discussion is free Thomas Pepinsky: What is Peer Review For? and open to anyone around the world (with internet access Why Referees are not the Disciplinary Police 16 and a PC or Macintosh). Visit the IMC registration page Sara McLaughlin Mitchell: An Editor's Thoughts linked here to register to participate or visit www.methods- on the Peer Review Process . 18 colloquium.com for more details. Yanna Krupnikov and Adam Seth Levine: Offer- The initial stimulus for this special issue came from a ing (Constructive) Criticism When Review- discussion of the peer review process among political scien- ing (Experimental) Research . 21 tists on Twitter, and the editorial team is always open to ideas for new special issues on topics of importance to the Announcement 25 methods community. If you have an idea for a special issue 2015 TPM Annual Most Viewed Post Award Winner 25 (from social media or elsewhere), feel free to let us know! We believe that special issues are a great way to encourage Notes From the Editors discussion among political scientists and garner attention for new ideas in the discipline. The editorial team at The Political Methodologist is proud to present this special issue on peer review! In this issue, The Editors 2 The Political Methodologist, vol. 23, no.1 Introduction to the Special Issue: Ac- a purely external critique." This is explored more fully in ceptance Rates and the Aesthetics of the piece by Krupnikov and Levine, where they argue that simply writing \external validity concern!" next to any lab- Peer Review oratory experiment hardly addresses whether the article's evidence actually answers the questions offered; in a way, Justin Esarey the attitude they criticize comes uncomfortably close to ar- Rice University guing that any question that can be answered using labora- [email protected] tory experiments doesn't deserve to be asked, ipso facto. Based on the contributions to The Political Methodolo- My own perspective on what a peer review ought to be gist's special issue on peer review, it seems that many polit- has changed during my career. Like Tom Pepinsky, I once ical scientists are not happy with the kind of feedback they thought my job was to \protect" the discipline from \bad receive from the peer review process. A theme seems to be research" (whatever that means). Now, I believe that a peer that reviewers focus less on the scientific merits of a piece review ought to answer just one question: What can we { viz., what can be learned from the evidence offered { and learn from this article?1 more on whether the piece is to the reviewer's taste in terms Specifically, I think that every sentence in a review ought of questions asked and methodologies employed. While I to be: agree that this feedback is unhelpful and undesirable, I am 1. a factual statement about what the author believes also concerned that it is a fundamental feature of the way can be learned from his/her research, or our peer review system works. More specifically, I believe that a system of journals with prestige tiers enforced by 2. a factual statement of what the reviewer thinks actu- extreme selectivity creates a review system where scientific ally can be learned from the author's research, or soundness is a necessary but far from sufficient criteria for 3. an argument about why something in particular can publication, meaning that fundamentally aesthetic and so- (or cannot) be learned from the author's research, sup- ciological factors ultimately determine what gets published ported by evidence. and inform the content of our reviews. As Brendan Nyhan says, \authors frequently despair not This feedback helps an editor learn what marginal contribu- just about timeliness of the reviews they receive but their tion that the submitted paper makes to our understanding, focus." Nyhan seeks to improve the focus of reviews by offer- informing his/her judgment for publication. It also helps the ing a checklist of questions that reviewers should answer as author understand what s/he is communicating in his/her a part of their reviews (omitting those questions that, pre- piece and whether claims must be trimmed or hedged to sumably, they should not seek to answer). These questions ensure congruence with the offered evidence (or more evi- revolve around ensuring that evidence offered is consistent dence must be offered to support claims that are central to with conclusions (\Does the author control for or condition the article). on variables that could be affected by the treatment of in- Things that I think shouldn't be addressed in a review terest?") and that statistical inferences are unlikely to be include: spurious (\Are any subgroup analyses adequately powered 1. whether the reviewer thinks the contribution is suffi- and clearly motivated by theory rather than data mining?"). ciently important to be published in the journal The other contributors express opinions in sync with Ny- han's point of view. For example, Tom Pepinsky says: 2. whether the reviewer thinks other questions ought to have been asked and answered \I strive to be indifferent to concerns of the type `if this manuscript is published, then people will 3. whether the reviewer believes that an alternative work on this topic or adopt this methodology, methodology would have been able to answer differ- even if I think it is boring or misleading?' In- ent or better questions stead, I try to focus on questions like `is this 4. whether the paper comprehensively reviews extant lit- manuscript accomplishing what it sets out to ac- erature on the subject (unless the paper defines itself complish?' and `are there ways to my comments as a literature review) can make it better?' My goal is to judge the manuscript on its own terms." In particular, I think that the editor is the person in the most appropriate position to decide whether the contribu- Relatedly, Sara Mitchell argues that reviewers should focus tion is sufficiently important for publication, as that is a on \criticisms internal to the project rather than moving to part of his/her job; I also think that such a decision should 1Our snarkier readers may be thinking that this question can be answered in just one word for many papers they review: \nothing." I cannot exclude that possibility, though it is inconsistent with my own experience as a reviewer. I would say that, if a reviewer believed nothing can be learned from a paper, I would hope that the reviewer would provide feedback that is lengthy and detailed enough to justify that conclusion. The Political Methodologist, vol. 23, no.1 3 be made (whenever possible) by the editorial staff before methodologies? \Interesting" questions and \cutting edge" reviews are solicited. (Indeed, in another article (Esarey methodologies are aesthetic judgments, at least in part, and N.d.) I offer simulation evidence that this system actually` defined relative to a group of people making these aesthetic produces better journal content, as evaluated by the over- judgments. Consequently, I fear that the peer review pro- all population of political scientists, compared to a more cess must become as much a function of sociology as of reviewer-focused decision procedure.) Alternatively, the im- science because of the increasingly competitive nature of portance of a publication could be decided (as Danilo Freire journal publication. Insomuch that I am correct, I think alludes) by the discipline at large, as expressed in readership would prefer that these aesthetic judgments come from the and citation rates, and not by one editor (or a small number discipline at large (as embodied in readership rates and ci- of anonymous reviewers); such a system is certainly conceiv- tations) and not from two or three anonymous colleagues. able in the post-scarcity publication environment created by Still, as long as there are tiers of journal prestige and online publishing. these tiers are a function of selectivity, I would guess that the Of course, as our suite of contributions to The Political power of aesthetic criteria to influence the peer review pro- Methodologist makes clear, most of us do not receive reviews cess has to persist. Indeed, I speculate that the proportion that are focused narrowly on the issues that I have outlined. of sound contributions in the submission pool is trending up- Naturally, this is a frustrating experience.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Book of Abstracts
    Complex Nanophotonics Science Camp cumberland lodge Windsor Great Park Berkshire, SL4 2HP, UK 27th–30th August 2013 Bringing together early career scientists to bridge Nanophotonics, Plasmonics & Biophotonics of complex media. Jacopo Bertolotti Twente University, The Netherlands [email protected] www.jacopobertolotti.com Otto Muskens COMMITTEE Southampton University, UK [email protected] www.ottolmuskens.info Sylvain Gigan Langevin Institute, ESPCI, France [email protected] www.institut-langevin.espci.fr/Sylvain-Gigan,510 Riccardo Sapienza SCIENTIFIC King’s College London, UK [email protected] www.sapienzalab.org Conference Secretary Julia Kilpatrick [email protected] www.sciencecamp.eu Niek van Hulst ICFO, The Institute of Photonic Science tracking nanoScale coherent energy tranSfer in Single light harveSting complexeS p16–17 SPEAKERS Stefania Residori Institut Non Lineaire de Nice , INLN–CNRS Self-adaptive holography in nonlinear media p18–19 Aristide Dogariu CREOL, Florida mechanical action in complex electromagnetic fieldS KEYNOTE p20–21 Rashid Zia Regine Frank Brown University KIT, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology a multipolar emitter: can 1 tranSition the quantum nature illuminate 2 pathS? of random laSerS p22–23 p42–43 SPEAKERS Tomas Cizmar Jaesuk Hwang University of St. Andrews Imperial College photonicS in Single organic dye diSordered moleculeS aS Single environmentS and photon SourceS fibre baSed imaging and large optical nonlinearitieS on a photonic chip p28–29 p44–45 Wonshik Choi Andrea
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Scholarship 2009 (PDF)
    DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP 2009 CHARLES W. BAILEY, JR. DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP HOUSTON, TX Digital Scholarship 2009 Copyright © 2010 by Charles W. Bailey, Jr. Cover photographs (before alteration) by NASA. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. http://www.digital-scholarship.org/ The author makes no warranty of any kind, either express or implied, for information in Digital Scholarship 2009, which is provided on an "as is" basis. The author does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss or damage resulting from the use of information in Digital Scholarship 2009. Table of Contents Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2009 Annual Edition 1 Dedication 1 1 Economic Issues 3 2 Electronic Books and Texts 16 2.1 Case Studies and History 16 2.2 General Works 24 2.3 Library Issues 36 3 Electronic Serials 44 3.1 Case Studies and History 44 3.2 Critiques 54 3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals 56 3.4 General Works 59 3.5 Library Issues 72 3.6 Research 90 4 General Works 115 5 Legal Issues 135 5.1 Intellectual Property Rights 135 5.2 License Agreements 163 6 Library Issues 174 6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata 174 6.2 Digital Libraries 204 6.3 General Works 247 6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation 265 7 New Publishing Models 296 8 Publisher Issues 341 8.1 Digital Rights Management and User Authentication 350 9 Repositories, E-Prints, and OAI 359 Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptive Learning Environments with Knowledge Representation and Social Interaction
    Adaptive Learning Environments with Knowledge Representation and Social Interaction State of the Art, Research Proposal with Work Plan Doctoral Program in Informatics Engineering (ProDEI) Student: Joaquim Fernando Silva Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Francisco Restivo Co-Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Eugénio Oliveira December 2008 “Whoever seeks the truth is seeking God, whether consciously or unconsciously” St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) co‐Patron of Europe i Preface This technical report partially fulfils the definitive registration in the Doctoral Programme in Informatics Engineering at Engineering Faculty of Porto University, Portugal. It is a reviewed version of a first report delivered in February 2007. Since then there has been some developments in the current research and it seemed important to rewrite this document. Moreover, this research project, since January 2008, has partly been supported by a FCT grant under the reference SFRH/BD/36206/2007. Joaquim Fernando Silva ii Abstract The main topic of this research is evaluating the impact of technology usage on teaching and learning. In concrete, our research hypothesis starts with the premise that technology can be adapted to education and not the other way round in order to reach higher levels of effectiveness, when compared to using available standalone Web 2.0 tools in learning contexts. The research method started with the study of learning theories, the technological available solutions that could be used in learning contexts, in particular the social software. Some experiments have been carried out using Ning’s social software in a high school context and its outcomes gave an interesting turnout for using social networking in education.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science
    22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com Open Science A EuroScientist Special Issue – June 2015 Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/science-2-0 EuroScience | 1, Quai Lezay-Marnésia | F-67000 Strasbourg | France Tel +33 3 8824 1150 | Fax +33 3 8824 7556 | [email protected] | www.euroscience.org 22/06/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Welcome to this Special Issue of EuroScientist on: Open Science ! ............................................................................. 3 Editorial ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Thoughtful debate is losing ground over appearance .................................................................................................. 4 Open Science in question ................................................................................................................................................ 6 The day when science is truly open .............................................................................................................................. 6 Jean-Claude Burgelman: the new open science paradigm
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Timo Hannay, Managing Director of Digital Science Greg Tananbaum Scholarnext Consulting, [email protected]
    Against the Grain Volume 24 | Issue 4 Article 19 September 2012 I Hear the Train A Comin'-An Interview with Timo Hannay, Managing Director of Digital Science Greg Tananbaum ScholarNext Consulting, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Tananbaum, Greg (2012) "I Hear the Train A Comin'-An Interview with Timo Hannay, Managing Director of Digital Science," Against the Grain: Vol. 24: Iss. 4, Article 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6187 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. I Hear the Train A Comin’ — An Interview with Timo Hannay, Managing Director of Digital Science Column Editor: Greg Tananbaum (ScholarNext Consulting) <[email protected]> www.scholarnext.com Column Editor’s Note: Timo Hannay is managing research laboratories, from Managing Director of Digital Science. He consumables to protocols. previously worked at its sister organization, • ReadCube (http://www.readcube.com/): Nature Publishing Group, where he was An application for organising, retrieving, director of nature.com. Before that he was annotating, and discovering research a research neurophysiologist (in Oxford and content. Tokyo), journalist (at The Economist and • SureChem (https://surechem.com/): Nature), and management consultant (at Open chemical patent search with amaz- McKinsey & Co.). I recently interviewed ing technology for turning text and im- Timo about Digital Science, a teaser of sorts ages into searchable structures. for Timo’s appearance at the Charleston • Symplectic Elements (http://www.sym- Conference this November.
    [Show full text]
  • The Latest Thinking About Metrics for Research Impact in the Social Sciences (White Paper)
    A SAGE White Paper The Latest Thinking About Metrics for Research Impact in the Social Sciences SAGE Publishing Based on a workshop convened by SAGE Publishing including representatives from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Altmetric, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, Clarivate Analytics, Google, New York University, School Dash, SciTech Strategies, the Social Science Research Council, and the University of Washington. www.sagepublishing.com Share your thoughts at socialsciencespace.com/impact or using #socialscienceimpact Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................2 Impact Metrics Workshop—February 2019 .................................................................3 Stakeholders ..................................................................................................................4 Academic Stakeholders—Individual ....................................................................................4 Academic Stakeholders—Institutional/Organizational ........................................................4 Societal Stakeholders ..........................................................................................................5 Commercial Stakeholders ...................................................................................................5 Academia .............................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Leading the Charge in Methods Innovation
    Issue #4 Spring/Summer 2016 p 2-3 Supporting the Author’s Voice p 4 Innovative Leading the Charge in Approaches from SAGE p 5 Methods Innovation New to SAGE Image taken from Adventures in Statistics: The Reality Engima by Andy Field, both a statistics textbook and novel enriched with graphic elements. p 6 Behind the Scenes p 7 Author in Profile p 8 Research methods are the connective tissue Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, focusing Tips that binds together the work of scholars across on data intensive social research, showing how for Authors disciplines, across geographical boundaries and institutions can reconfigure themselves to respond across levels, from an undergraduate student to this opportunity. As Gary King, the institute’s embarking on a dissertation through to a senior director, has put it: professor working with a team. The social sciences are undergoing a dramatic While not a discipline in its own right, this activity transformation from studying problems to solving p 9 – the design, collection, analysis and presentation them; from making do with a small number of of data – is the foundation upon which knowledge sparse data sets to analyzing increasing quantities Celebrating claims must sit. SAGE has throughout our history of diverse, highly informative data; from isolated SAGE authors committed to publishing research methods to scholars toiling away on their own to larger support researchers as they develop their fields scale, collaborative, interdisciplinary, lab-style through journal articles, textbooks and now a suite research teams; and from a purely academic of born digital products. Throughout this time, pursuit focused inward to having a major impact p methodological innovations have reshaped the on public policy, commerce and industry, other 10-11 nature of research and SAGE responded creatively, academic fields, and some of the major problems Journal for example by publishing in evaluation, qualitative that affect individuals and societies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Virtual Road to Recovering Trust in Academic
    25/02/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com The virtual road to recovering trust in academic publishing Time for more radical changes in science publishing By Arran Frood Published on EuroScientist: www.euroscientist.com Innovative technologies designed to assist the research community could help overcome mistrust in science publishers Real life is often more colourful than the most imaginative drama. The unfolding scientists versus publishers saga is no exception. It features the discovery of fake journals; dodgy ‘peer review’ papers; an ideological war over open access; metrification; copyright claims; bloated profits; submission and conference boycotts; subscriptions cancelled. Weapons-grade mudslinging between academics and scientific publishers has become common practice in the last ten to fifteen years. It is serious. People have been criminalised, and then committed suicide. Others have got rich on the basis of work funded by the taxpayer. But the fierce opposition may be receding, facilitated by technologies designed to improve the way the scientific process works, and providing scientists with tangible benefits. Unequal relationship The ongoing opposition between the two protagonists is like a match between many clones of David versus a handful of Goliaths. In the blue corner is the modern stressed academic. “Will perform science for food” read their funding- hungry tweets typed while trying to get the last experiments into a top-ranking journal. Well, top-ish. Read this post online: http://www.euroscientist.com/the-virtual-road-to-recovering-trust-in-academic- publishing EuroScience | 1, Quai Lezay-Marnésia | F-67000 Strasbourg | France Tel +33 3 8824 1150 | Fax +33 3 8824 7556 | [email protected] | www.euroscience.org 25/02/2015 EuroScientist - European science conversation by the community, for the community www.euroscientist.com In the red corner: the oligarch of publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • And They Were There-Reports of Meetings Ramune K
    Against the Grain Volume 25 | Issue 2 Article 35 April 2013 And They Were There-Reports of Meetings Ramune K. Kubilius Northwestern University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Kubilius, Ramune K. (2013) "And They eW re There-Reports of Meetings," Against the Grain: Vol. 25: Iss. 2, Article 35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6494 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. From the University Presses from page 62 AH: Do you think it’s a good idea for univer- sity presses to get involved in initiatives to create open access and/or less expensive textbooks for undergraduates? PB: Again, I don’t think one size fits all. Some presses have been publishing textbooks for a very long time and almost every press publishes books that are used as concurrent reading in undergraduate course. Florida and others have been involved in open access textbooks. Setting up the infrastructure to publish text- books may or may not be productive depending on the individual situation, but university presses have always provided materials to students at reasonable prices and no doubt will continue to do so in varied ways. AH: Thanks. One last question — how will you define success as AAUP’s Executive Director? PB: Great question. The answer is I’m not sure yet. But revitalized relations with other constituencies in the university would be one way.
    [Show full text]
  • Plos ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing
    PLoS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing Open Access (OA) advocates argue that PLoS ONE is now the largest scholarly journal in the world. Its parent organisation — Public Library of Science (PLoS) — was co-founded in 2001 by Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus. What does the history of PLoS tell us about the development of PLoS ONE? What does the success of PLoS ONE tell us about OA? And what does the current rush by other publishers to clone PLoS ONE tell us about the future of scholarly communication? The most important thing is to find out what is the most important thing Shunryu Suzuki Our story begins in 1998, in a coffee shop located on the corner of Cole and Parnassus in San Francisco. It was here, Harold Varmus reports, that the seeds of PLoS were sown, during a seminal conversation he had with colleague Patrick Brown.1 Only at that point did Varmus realise what a mess scholarly communication was in. Until then, he says, he had been ―an innocent person who went along with the system as it existed‖. Enlightenment began when Brown pointed out to Varmus that when scientists publish their papers they routinely (and without payment) assign ownership in them to the publisher. Publishers then lock the papers behind a paywall and charge other researchers a toll (subscription) to read them, thereby restricting the number of potential readers. Since scientists crave readers (and the consequent “impact”) above all else, Brown reminded Varmus, the current system is illogical, counterproductive, and unfair to the research community.
    [Show full text]
  • ALPSP Conference and Awards Dinner 2016
    ALPSP Conference and Awards Dinner 2016 14-16 September Park Inn Hotel & Conference Centre London Heathrow, UK #alpsp16 www.alpspconference.org Gold+ sponsor Welcome Reception sponsor Wi-Fi sponsor Awards sponsor Silver sponsors Bronze sponsors Coffee Breaks sponsor Conference Overview Wednesday 14 September 12:00-14:00 Lunch and Registration 14:00-14:15 Welcome address (Discovery) 14:15-15:15 Keynote: Zoe Harris, Trinity Mirror Group PLC (Discovery) 15:15-15:45 Coffee/networking break sponsored by Semantico 15:45-17:15 Plenary 1 - Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Age of Big Data (Discovery) 17:15-18:00 ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing - the finalists (Discovery) 19:00-22:00 Welcome reception and buffet sponsored by the Copyright Clearance Center (Pre Function Area and Discovery) Thursday 15 September 08:45-10:00 Plenary 2 - What Does Academic Engagement Mean Now? (Discovery) 10:00-10:30 Coffee/networking break sponsored by Semantico Parallel 1a: Digital Business Parallel 1b: Shifting Sands: What’s Parallel 1c: Industry Updates 10:30-12:00 Models (Discovery 2&3) affecting your business? (Atlantis) (Discovery 1) 12:00-12:30 AGM (ALPSP members only) (Discovery 2&3) 12:00-14:00 Lunch/networking break 14:00-15:30 Parallel 2a: Peer Review is Dead! Parallel 2b: Beyond Article Level Parallel 2c: Are Your Rights in Long live peer review! (Discovery 1) Metrics (Discovery 2&3) Order? Gold+ sponsor session (Atlantis) 15:30-16:00 Coffee/networking break sponsored by Semantico 16:00-17:30 Plenary 3: What is the Core Expertise of a
    [Show full text]
  • Ctwatch Quarterly
    ISSN 1555-9874 AVAILABLE ON -LINE AT http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/ VOLUME 3 NUMBER 3 AUGUST 2007 The Coming Revolution in Scholarly Communications & Cyberinfr astructure GUEST EDITORS LEE DIRKS AND TONY HEY 1 Introduction Lee Dirks and Tony Hey FEATURED ARTICLES 5 The Shape of the Scientific Article in the 42 Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Developing Cyberinfrastructure Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Clifford Lynch Scientometrics Tim Brody, Les Carr, Yves Gingras, Chawki Hajjem, Stevan Harnad, and Alma Swan 11 Next-Generation Implications of Open Access 51 The Law as Cyberinfrastructure Paul Ginsparg Brian Fitzgerald and Kylie Pappalardo 19 Web 2.0 in Science Timo Hannay PERSPECTIVES 26 Reinventing Scholarly Communication for the 58 Cyberinfrastructure For Knowledge Sharing Electronic Age John Wilbanks J. Lynn Fink and Philip E. Bourne 32 Interoperability for the Discovery, Use, and 67 Trends Favoring Open Access Re-Use of Units of Scholarly Communication Peter Suber Herbert Van de Sompel and Carl Lagoze http://www.ctwatch.org/ AUGUST 2007 1 Introduction By now, it is a well-observed fact that scholarly communication is in the midst of Lee Dirks tremendous upheaval. That is as exciting to many as it is terrifying to others. What Director, Scholarly Communication is less obvious is exactly what this dramatic change will mean for the academic Microsoft Corporation world – specifically what influence it will have on the research community – and the Tony Hey advancement of science overall. In an effort to better grasp the trends and the potential Corporate Vice President, External Research impact in these areas, we’ve assembled an impressive constellation of top names in the Microsoft Corporation field – as well as some new, important voices – and asked them to address the key issues for the future of scholarly communications resulting from the intersecting concepts of cyberinfrastructure, scientific research, and Open Access.
    [Show full text]