Reconstructed Science Communication for Open Access Online Scientific Curation
Author and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP
Co-Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
PEER J Model for Open Access
The Peer J Scientific Online Journal introduces the need for this new order of publication as follows:
We are fully aware that being appropriately indexed and maximally discoverable is extremely important for our authors. We understand that you publish your research so that others can discover, read, discuss, cite and build upon it. If no one can discover, let alone read, the article that you spent years researching, and months writing, then it was pointless to even publish it in the first place.
We see that Open Access, and the associated benefits of open and early sharing are increasingly being understood by academia; and finally we hear from a lot of scientists who are now looking for a suitable preprint venue for their work.
http://blog.peerj.com/post/47445954946/ http://blog.peerj.com/post/47030855181/
This journal has full legitimacy as an acceptable peer reviewed publication for researchers who are already establish researchers publishing in their professional society publications, and for young academic professionals who need to establish a publication resume for academic advancement.This has become very important because of the long timelines for research publications in peer reviewed journals, and the effect on establishing an earned reputation needed for advancement.
ReadCube
ReadCube is an architecture for workflow efficient citation that is compatible with
- writing ,
- managing a collection of papers, and
- annotation and
improves the creation of a readable PDF. What app does it uniquely provide in one program?
- Enhanced PDF
- Supplements
- Clickable inline references
- Full reference list
- Editor summaries
- Related articles
- Inline notes and highlights
- Recommendations
- Instant searchability
- Bookmarklet
- Tablet compatible
- Sync and Backup
The features enumerated are not trivial. When writing for scientific publication, the
- finding of relevant related research publication, and
- adequate citation of other work is both important and laborious
- in constructing the discussion and support of a novel concept.
These two developments are a strong emergence of a process as significant as Guttenberg’s introduction of the printing press, which opened the door to a
- flourishing Western Culture enriched by
- theater, opera, literary arts, journals, and the newspaper.
Just as the newspaper, radio, television, and the traditional movie have been in transformation in response to an
- all the time noisy and stressfully hard to discern target audience,
- the scholarly publications are under pressure to change and to go to the next level.
These two events are followed by the announcement of eLife, in life sciences research.
I tip my hat to IBMs Watson for creating a vision of man and computer as partners, although it was perhaps germinated by the earlier work by the physician who
- first created the structure for the medical record, then went on without the technology we have today
- to create the first feasible, but labor intensive EHR.
The ICHOR lab system was first to focus on WORKFLOW, but it also
- did not have the advantages of technology that emerged in the last decade.
In a separate parallel advance, Eugene Rypka in Albuquerque advance the feature extraction and analysis of bacterial classification. Then, Rosser Rudolf showed that it
had an underlying structure related to Solomon Kullback’s work on entropy, calling it “effective information”. We now use Akaike and Bayes information criteria as measures of classification adequacy.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.