Thanks to a couple of helpful sites [1, 2]: I have learnt that it is apparently possible to paginate a single blog post. Extremely useful for long blog posts. Of course, the actual tag “Next-Page Quicktag” is not actually found on my “Write Post” interface, so I have to insert the code for “Next Page” manually to get it done. This is not a big deal, but I do wonder why they have not just included it in the interface.

Something I just felt sharing, in case others wanted to know. I have been going through some of my older posts to get some pagination done. Just to make navigation easier. I hope it does not backfire and actually make me lose the few viewers that I had because they rather not click on the “Read the rest of this entry »” links or the links to the respective paginated pages of a single blog. I guess that is why some bloggers just put up with huge posts on the “front page”: easier to scroll than to click?

While it did start a discussion on a topic that I am interested in reading, I am not going to spend time dissecting “Reinventing academic publishing online. Part I: Rigor, relevance and practice”. However, there are two things I wish to say about this article regarding its content. The first point is that I am not going to bother reading this article (which is part 1 of their paper), but I am very much looking forward to reading part 2 of their paper.

“Huh?”

Because there are only so many “these are the problems” articles I am willing to read and comment on before I want to read nothing but “here are our/the solutions to these problems” articles. And the second point is that I think it is very ironic how more and more journals are publishing articles that talk about the limitations of the journal publishing models. And, correspondingly, how there is a need to improve them to fit with the reasonable but growing demand for a higher degree of quality, efficiency and effectivity of scholarly communication.

“Smells like “friendly” fire to me.”

Of course, in their defense: scholars generally still consider the (current) journal publishing models the best they have for scholarly communication. So scholars publishing in journals is (still) justified. And journals operating the way they currently do is also (still) justified. The latter not without growing pressure to do better, I think/hope.

Anyway, this article actually triggered a discussion on the issue of readability on FriendFeed.

“But nothing on the content itself? Awkward…”

I cannot constructively comment on the (lack of) readability of this article since I have not read it. Yet, I did notice the use of bulleted lists as I skimmed through the article, and there is something I wish to share. See, I was once told by one of my professors, as a critique on a report I submitted, that using bulleted lists was generally not recommended. Apparently, bulleted lists take the “flow” out of (reading) the text. That was a sad day for me, since I really like bulleted lists. To me, it makes reading/absorbing the information easier/faster, but I could see my professor’s point, too.

“Now you have to learn how to write better. Bummer.”

Also, they read all their stuff printed/analog, while I try to read as much (and fast) off the computer screen as I can (saves ink, printing can be expensive!). I wonder if that can make a difference, too. Maybe bulleted lists are just better for people who aren’t solely focused on reading something, while they can be an annoyance to people heavily focused on the text.

“It’s probably just the ADD kicking in for Internet Junkies like you.”

Indeed. Maybe I should just try to read more printed stuff, away from my computer.

“That is a natural progression from “IT bum” to “adult”. I guess there is still hope for you.”

Here is a blog post by Mike Taylor on the issue of crediting qualitative contributions of a scholarly nature titled “Yet more uninformed noodling on the future of scientific publishing and that kind of thing”. The blogosphere seems to have more of these “rating blog posts/comments” discussions lately. Considering I am replying to that blog post, I could have aptly titled this blog post something like “Citing and ranking web based scientific documents”. However, it was actually a different issue addressed in that post that compelled me to write this.

“Which is?”

Blog posts versus (journal) peer reviews

As things stand at this point, we have a hierarchy of sciency documents. At the top (which we’ll call level 1) come papers. The reputation of papers is largely determined by formal pre-publication reviews (which we will therefore classify as level 2) — and, increasingly, also by blog posts about the paper, which are also level 2.

Here Mike Taylor gives a simple classification of the (perceived) value of scientific documents.

“So?”

Now, if a paper (postprint) is a level 1 and a formal prepublication peer review is a level 2, then a blog post about that paper is unlikely to be a level 2. At least not in many (dare I say most?) cases. One issue I have with it is that a blog post about a paper is usually a post-publication “scrutiny”, after formal prepublication reviews have already been carried out. And there is a significant difference between prepublication scrutiny and post-publication scrutiny in terms of the time, effort and proficiency required of the peer reviewer.

Journals have minimum standards for their publications. One of those standards is that the documented research has to be scientifically sound. Therefore, prepublication reviewers have to verify that everything written in the paper is sound and does not contain (scientific) mistakes. This results in some constructive feedback on how to improve the paper. And all that in a systematic and timely fashion. As for similar standards for the post-publication scrutiny (by blogs): what standards? Most of these blog posts contain a short summary of the paper with a little bit of personal input as to why they find the paper interesting. They cannot be compared to blogs with no quality assessment standards.

Formal prepublication peer reviews have people called editors, whose incomes depend on a job well done, to supervise and encourage peer reviewers to peer review qualitatively. No such quality threshold exists for blog posts/comments. So even if blogs have quality assessment standards defined, they would still have to find qualified people to (objectively) enforce or even verify those standards in the same systematic and timely fashion. For blogs, there is currently neither a quality assurance of the documents nor incentive to scrutinize them properly.

“You’re rather obsessed about this.”

This may seem like some lame nitpicking over a simple classification of containers for scholarly knowledge, meant as a simple example to demonstrate the hierarchy of said containers, but we should be very clear about the differences between the concepts we are talking about. I get antsy every time someone tries to legitimately estimate the value of blog posts up there with papers. And now I have realized that I also get antsy when someone tries to do the same for formal prepublication peer reviews and blog posts.

I think making a case for the value of blogs for scholarly communication is fine. There are, however, some very clear distinctions; blog posts are currently just not as valuable as peer reviews and we should not give off that impression until specific quality standards for blogs are defined and enforced. Until then we should not even accidentally put them on the same level. It will only confuse the scholarly communities even more, and might hurt whatever future attempts people make to promote the value of blogs (and formal prepublication peer reviews). Convincing the “traditional” scholarly communities about the value of blog posts/comments and putting them right up there with papers or formal prepublication peer reviews is disingenuous at best and destructive at worst. It will not make anyone take you seriously.

“Geez alright already! So what else is this guy talking about?”

On citing and ranking web based scientific documents
Mike Taylor then suggests that combining “web based citations”, similar to how paper citations function, and a Google’s PageRank like system might be an answer to the issue of crediting digital containers of scholarly knowledge. But he has identified at least three issues with this approach.

The first is that formal prepublication reviews are not shared on the web, so they cannot be properly cited (through web based citing mechanics). Blog comments, although commonly publicly available, are not on separate pages but usually as an extension of the blog posts in question. That makes citing and processing the citations according to this ranking suggestion more complicated, if not currently impossible.

The second issue is that it has the same problem as paper citations: indifferent to context. Are people citing them because they are good and thus valuable to advance their own points or because they are embarrassingly bad?

The third issue is that, although Google is in probably the best position to make these kinds of citation/ranking reputation systems happen, Google is a private corporation and probably not the best choice to let them handle such reputation management systems.

To address the first issue, we would have to think of something like open peer reviews. But open peer reviewing is actually not that popular. So that move is rather unlikely without some drastic (cultural) changes. For blog posts and comments I can imagine this being a bit easier to solve, however. The second issue is a technical one and one that I cannot imagine it being unsolvable with the right IT infrastructure. The last issue needs a scholarly organization with enough financial and “cultural” support to make these changes happen.

So that is that. While going through some of these discussions, I actually ran into several posts on improving peer review that I thought was also pretty interesting. I think I will blog about that next very soon.

A bit late perhaps, but as I am chatting away with a friend who Twitters, I realize one of the benefits of Twittering over Blogging (or any other type of “authoring” really).

“Let me take an exceptionally educated guess: you not actually being a member of the Twitter community? Sounds great indeed; where do I (and, for that matter, the rest of the world) sign up?”

In your dreams and my nightmares. See, one of the principles of successful change management is to, as quickly as possible, achieve success. Reaching that milestone, no matter how small is it, will give people the feeling of being productive and useful. Reaching milestone after milestone, no matter how small they are, is an experience that strongly motivates people to (continue to) do things.

There are many times when I thought of something quick that I wanted to write about, but refrained from doing so because my mind went “I cannot just write stuff down. I will have to take my time and think about it, then write a draft, then spend quite a bit of time reviewing and rewriting that draft into a coherent and complete story”.

“Huh? When have you ever used that procedure for this blog?”

I am doing it even now. So the idea that I had to spend a lot of time to share what I felt was a very little nugget of wisdom was not exactly motivating. Which is kind of insane since blogging was the Twitter before Twitter! It was an easy outlet of whatever one wanted to say online right there and then, quick and dirty! Format be damned! But when blogging became a more serious activity for professionals, the people behind Twitter had to look for the next format where “quick and dirty” was the rule, no exceptions. By limiting it to 140 characters, they have successfully captured, no… abducted the “quick and dirty” feel and complemented it with the “repeatedly strive for quick achievements, no matter how small” concept.

No wonder they called it Twitter: it sounds and means something fast, whereas “blog” sounds slow and its definition reminds me of something slow. If there ever was an alien called “Blog”, you know it would be something big, fat, wobbling with multiple layers of whatever.

“Hey, leave the snark to me! Anyway, abducted is a strong word; I predict a new service that will have even a lower maximum limit of characters reaching great heights of popularity!”

Not an impossible theory. Still, how articulate can one be with even fewer characters? Wait, do I even want to know?

Wobbling Blogger Out.

Just a small update; I have been rather busy with stuff so I have not been able to update my blog properly. I have been and still am working on a very big blog post, though. And I guarantee you that that blog post will be very awesome. Until that time, a small update on something interesting that I have found through my FriendFeed contacts. Looks like the number of repositories have increased by one: Sprouts

Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems is an Open Access publication that provides a fast-turnaround outlet for authentic and original research and work-in-progress carried out by scholars of the information systems field and members of AIS, the Association for Information Systems. Sprouts is devoted to research about the ways in which information is generated and used in the prevailing complex socio-technical landscape.

Sprouts is special because it focuses on Information Systems. Which is still relatively a new field to embrace the Open Access preprint culture. I know Social Science Research Network has a special section for (working) papers on Information Systems, but having one specifically for Information Systems sends a stronger signal in terms of recognizing the value of OA preprints. At least in my opinion anyway.

Interesting progress for the Open Access theme!

Blog Abstract
To keep up with (random) new research, find new material to blog about and practice my skills to poke at said research, a new category for this blog, aptly named “Poking At New Research”, is created. The first entry in this category is an article that focuses on the effects of intentional pain.

Wow, I sure have neglected this whole blogging thing. I do not really have an excuse. Well, besides being busy with various important activities.

“Huh? Oh alright, I’ll bite: what important activities?”

Such as trying to land a good job and wrapping up my master program so I can finally graduate. My master’s thesis is actually already done, but there is something else I have to do before I can submit and defend it. But I will procrastinate that story for later, if ever. More importantly: I have been preparing for a very long blog post containing my idea to improve scholarly communication, which is based on my master’s thesis. However, I first want to wrap up my graduation and all that before I finish that particular blog post.

It may seem kind of odd to do it in this order; getting feedback before “publishing it” seems to be a more logical order. But I doubt it really matters, because if it is good there is plenty of time to improve and develop it later. I do find it important to present it properly so it is better to understand and build upon. So that is why I am delaying it until I am completely at ease with everything else.

“That’s surprisingly whiny, even for you…”

In the meantime, I have kept up reading various informative outlets just to stay informed on topical news. Since I want to keep on blogging, I might as well comment on news that I read. That should provide me with enough material to blog about until I can focus on my own thing again. Two birds with one stone!

“I agree. Criticizing others is always more fun than being criticized yourself!”

Well, I have always wanted to do such a special category. Since I am just a master student, I guess it is like a “layman’s perspective” on the significance of (new) research (or lack thereof). So without further ado, I present you a new category: Poking At Research. Posts in this category focus on topical scientific news and their “originality” value according to little old me.

“I’m sure scholars all over the world are lining up to hear from wannabe scholars like you this very minute.”

Well, it keeps me “up to date” on some of the recent research that gets published. I also think that this is a good exercise to incorrectly assess their value based on the way it is reported “in the media” and hopefully the papers themselves. It will keep me sharp!

So here is the first entry in this category: over at ScienceDaily, the following research paper is covered: Pain Hurts More If Person Hurting You Means It

‘Researchers at Harvard University have discovered that our experience of pain depends on whether we think someone caused the pain intentionally. In their study, participants who believed they were getting an electrical shock from another person on purpose, rather than accidentally, rated the very same shock as more painful. Participants seemed to get used to shocks that were delivered unintentionally, but those given on purpose had a fresh sting every time.’

That sounds kind of interesting, let me dig a little deeper to see what this means:

It has long been known that our own mental states can alter the experience of pain, but these findings suggest that our perceptions of the mental states of others can also influence how we feel pain.

Okay…but are these two concepts not closely related to begin with? I mean, I assume that that which we perceive can and usually does influence our mental state? So if we have already established that our mental states can influence the experience of pain, would it not be logical to assume that whatever influences our mental states will also play a role in how we experience pain?

“This study shows that even if two harmful events are physically identical, the one delivered with the intention to hurt actually hurts more,” says Gray. “Compare a slap from a friend as she tries to save us from a mosquito versus the same slap from a jilted lover. The first we shrug off instantly, while the second stings our cheek for the rest of the night.”

So I wonder if that is not explained because the latter has a far more psychological factor to it? Intentionally inflicting (physical) pain on someone goes, particularly in this case, hand in hand with intentionally inflicting mental pain on someone. There is the additional “this person is trying to hurt me! The pain is serious!” mental pressure on a person, if nothing else. A slap by a jilted lover IS meant to sting both physically and psychologically. The lover experienced psychological pain, e.g. the breaking up thing, and intentionally inflicts physical pain as a way to communicate/share that psychological pain. And psychological pain will make one remember the physical pain better. Indeed, “memory” is also a factor, I think. Intent indicates reason, reason indicates something personal. And one tends to remember the personal things longer and stronger than the accidental occurrences. Say when someone accidentally bumps into you: you are more likely to just go “Pff, whatever!”.

“Speak for your wussy self. I’d make that person pay for sure!”

Normal people would not, in general. But what if someone intentionally bumps into you? That would instantly call a “what is this person’s issue with me?!”. And that immediately puts some additional psychological stress that an unintentional, impersonal and accidental bump does not normally bring.

Conclusively, I am not sure these results are all that surprising. Of course, it is also important to remember that logical reasoning is just one small part of science. Empirically confirming your hypothesis, which is based on said logical reasoning, is the other crucial part. That is essentially what makes science science: that something can be measured and confirmed.

“Hmm, but with that kind of reasoning, it seems the whole point of assessing the significance of new research is rather moot.”

Not necessarily. For this case, it seems the significance is in the empirical aspect. Other research that I might run into later can be significance from a different perspective. But it is true that confirming something empirically that can be reasonably, or rather, logically expected is less impressive than confirming something that was unexpected. So if I have to give a “verdict”, I would have to say that this research does not score that high in the significance/originality factor for me. But maybe I am missing something here?

Anyway, this is it for the first entry! I am looking forward to doing a lot more of these!

Journal Editors can be practicing researchers as well. A good example of that would be the Editor-in-Chief of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals: M.S. El Naschie. Normally, I would say that if he can do research, write papers and have them published while also working as a journal editor somewhere at the same time: more power to him.

Of course, this can get a bit ickier when many of his papers are actually published in “his” own journal. I mean, he is the guy with the final say on what is apparently good enough to be published and what not. Where is the accountability when it comes to his publications? Obviously, he likes to have his papers published, and since he has the power to accept them for publication, I would say that there are accountability issues here.

“The golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.”

I have to say I am not sure what he is thinking. Measurability and accountability are the corner stones of science. What he is doing now, publishing many of his own articles in the journal that he is the editor of and unabashedly quoting his own papers while he is at it, inaccurately skews the impact of his journal and his own papers. Heck, editors are the people that carry out the important, if not vital, task of enforcing the objective scrutiny of manuscripts for journal publication/ dissemination of scholarly works. They should know better than anyone else why it is important to have the concept of peer review: objective and accountable certification.

“How deliciously shameless and sneaky. I like it!”

In the world of auditing, no audit/accountancy organization is allowed to have the roles of the auditor and the “fixers” of the object of the audit, usually an organization, in question. And there is a very simple reason for that: if you are both in charge of identifying and fixing the issues, you can get a bit more “creative” in finding those issues that need fixing. Because the more fixing you need to do, the more you can charge said organization. Whereas if the “fixing” is done by your competitors, your audit will be very honest: nothing less and certainly nothing more than what is required to get the organization up to the required standards. This concept of separating people with certain responsibilities with different authorizations is called segregation of duties.

“Nothing more fun than being both the salesman and the bookkeeper!”

In this situation, we could say that journal editors should only be allowed to submit and publish their research papers in other journals or they make the peer review reports publicly available. Just to set the record straight.

P.S. I am going to forego the blog abstracts for my shorter blog posts. Should be self-explanatory, but I would not want to be accused of being lazily inconsistent.

“Which you are.”

Not as famous as the others I have referred to from my blog, but he is definitely amazing on the electric guitar violin. Ed Alleyne Johnson is a famous busker in UK. Here is one of my favorite songs, “Orange”, from his cd “Ultraviolet” performed live.

Scientists discover Patagonian diesel that grows on trees

A tree fungus could provide green fuel that can be pumped directly into vehicle tanks, US scientists say. The organism, found in the Patagonian rainforest, naturally produces a mixture of chemicals that is remarkably similar to diesel.

“So money does grow on trees!”

Of course, now we have to figure out how we can mass grow this stuff to be able to support an energy consuming creatures like us and our inventions. I wonder if that is possible? I hope so, because that would be amazing. If nothing else, it sounds like there is all the more reason to research these kind of alternatives more thoroughly. This is definitely good news! Think of all the good it can do if it can be mass produced or something like that! Hybrid vehicle technologies are going to like this news!

I just wanted to say that I am also active on FriendFeed since not too long ago. And this might not come as a surprise to you, but I am using the same nick (Wobbler). I think it is a pretty fun and useful concept to get in touch with people and things they share. Much like RSS but with room to provide short comments. So that is nice. Seems like scholars are starting to use Twitter as well. I do not think I care enough for Twitter to use that now, but maybe later?

“Scholars and IT, way to reinforce a stereotype.”

Oh well, onto a slightly more relevant bit of information then. Thanks to FriendFeed, I came across a blog post on Why Academics Should Blog by Hugh McGuire. He is mostly presenting some good points, although the accreditation and relevancy issues remain unsolved. Well, that is my opinion anyway. I am not going to repeat my junk here, you can read it in his comment section.

On a related note, here is another topical discussion (and even a real life example!) on DrugMonkey’s blog about scholars using blogs to get things done.

“Hah, way to make your case.”

Hey, I stand by my views. I think there is a place for blogging to improve scholarly communication. Just not for large settings without significant improvements on its format (and thus its efficiency). And when that time comes, if ever, I imagine it will resemble digital research papers more than blogs. Ah well, maybe more of those predictions later.