Monday, 16 August 2010

The P-Word II > The Ontology of Plagiarism: Part Two > Get A Clue

Colleagues/

In response to comments on his recent NY Times Opinionator Piece > Plagiarism Is Not A Big Moral Deal

[http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2010/08/p-word-stanley-fish-and-i-agree.html] ,

Stanley Fish has authored "The Ontology of Plagiarism: Part Two "

[http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/the-ontology-of-plagiarism-part-two/].

IMHO > Most Still Do Not (Really) Recognize/Understand The Issue(s) > Please (Do) View / Read My Perspective On The Issue >>>

A few years ago I gave a keynote at the 3rd International Plagiarism Conference / 23 - 25 June 2008 / City Campus East, Northumbria University / Newcastle-upon-tyne, UK /

"Disruptive Scholarship: An Idea Whose Time Has Come: (Re)Use / (Re)Mix / (Re)New"

Abstract

Hadrian's Wall is a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of modern-day England. ... [It was] 117 kilometres long,

... [I]ts width and height [were] dependent on the construction materials [that] ... were available nearby.

... [T]he wall in the east follow[ed] the outcrop of a hard, resistant igneous diabase rock escarpment ... Local limestone was used in the construction, except for ... section[s] in the west ... where turf was used instead ... .

The Broad Wall was initially built with a clay-bonded rubble core and mortared dressed rubble facing stones, but this seems to have made it vulnerable to collapse, and repair with a mortared core was sometimes necessary.... [I]n time ... [Hadrian's] Wall was abandoned and fell into ruin. Over the centuries and even into the twentieth century a large proportion of the stone was reused in other local buildings.

Throughout history, humans have (re)used local resources to create not only buildings and fortifications, but monuments, roads, and a wide variety of other structures. For countless generations, artists, composers, and writers have freely incorporated elements from local and distant cultures to create new visual, musical, and textual forms.

In The Web 2.0 World, the open (re)combination of multiple media has become commonplace in many venues, practices that Lawrence Lessig [snip], founder of Creative Commons [snip]and others, would characterize as emblematic of a 'Remix ' or 'Read/Write' culture. Indeed, from his point of view, “the health, progress, and wealth creation of a culture is fundamentally tied to this participatory remix process” [snip]

In the recently-released Horizon Report 2008 - a joint publication of the New Media Consortium (NMC) and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), six emerging information technologies and practices that are expected to significantly impact educational organizations are profiled: Grassroots Video, Collaborative Webs, Mobile Broadband, Data Mashups, Collaborative Intelligence, and Social Operating Systems.

In this presentation, we will review the Read/Write Traditions of the Arts, Humanities, and Sciences; analyze key Past / Present / Future Participatory Technologies; and explore the potential of Web 2.0 for creating/fostering Disruptive Learning / Scholarship / Teaching in the 21st century.

The Director's Cut of the (150+ Slides) PPT is available from my _Scholarship 2.0_ blog at

[ http://bit.ly/9riXmc ]

I hope The Title and Abstract indicate That I Have A Different View Of The P-Word [:-)]

/Gerry

Saturday, 14 August 2010

Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s > "The Future of Research and Scholarship - Open, Social, Semantic, Mobile"

Colleagues/

On Augst 12 2010, The NYTimes piblished an article titled "Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s" >>>

In 2003, a group of scientists and executives from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the drug and medical-imaging industries, universities and nonprofit groups joined in a project that experts say had no precedent: a collaborative effort to find the biological markers that show the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain.

[more]

Source

[http://nyti.ms/9mgrCc]

As Expected > Observed > Predicted  >>>

BTW: Not Only Did The Irish Save Civilization


We Also ForeSaw / Foresee The Future [:-)]

>>> They Are A-Changin' > The Future Of Research And Scholarship: Open / Semantic / Social / Mobile <<<

There are four major themes that are and will become the context and framework of research and scholarship in the 21st Century: Open / Semantic / Social / Mobile

> Open > Open Access / Open Data / Open Peer Review / Open Research

>> Semantic > Audio / Interactivity / Supplemental Content / Video

>>> Social  > Science Blogging / Social Bookmarking / Social Networking / Social Software

>>>> Mobile > Mobile Access / Mobile Content / Mobile Data / Mobile Research

In scheduled presentation(s), we will briefly profile select developments related to these major themes and speculate on their potential evolution and impact on research and scholarship in the coming decade(s).

[http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2009/05/paradigms-they-are-changin-open.html]

BTW For A summary of my presentation at the National Univerity of Ireland, Galway SEE John Brelsin's blog entry at

[http://bit.ly/9xmGe5]

Thanks, John !!!

BTW: John is the co-author of The Social Semantic Web. Springer, 2010

[http://bit.ly/12TJTX]

JOY !

/Gerry

Wednesday, 11 August 2010

The P-Word > Stanley Fish And I Agree? > Plagiarism Is Not A Big Moral Deal

Colleagues/

New York Times columnist, Stanley Fish,  " ... a professor of humanities and law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago," recently published his most recent NY Times Opininator column titled >

Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal

[snip]

Whenever it comes up plagiarism is a hot button topic and essays about it tend to be philosophically and morally inflated. But there are really only two points to make. (1) Plagiarism is a learned sin. (2) Plagiarism is not a philosophical issue.

[snip]

Plagiarism is like that; it’s an insider’s obsession. If you’re a professional journalist, or an academic historian, or a philosopher, or a social scientist or a scientist, the game you play for a living is underwritten by the assumed value of originality and failure properly to credit the work of others is a big and obvious no-no. But if you’re a musician or a novelist, the boundary lines are less clear (although there certainly are some)  ... .

[snip]

And if you’re a student, plagiarism will seem to be an annoying guild imposition without a persuasive rationale (who cares?); for students, learning the rules of plagiarism is worse than learning the irregular conjugations of a foreign language. It takes years, and while a knowledge of irregular verbs might conceivably come in handy if you travel, knowledge of what is and is not plagiarism in this or that professional practice is not something that will be of very much use to you unless you end up becoming a member of the profession yourself.

It follows that students who never quite get the concept right are by and large not committing a crime; they are just failing to become acclimated to the conventions of the little insular world they have, often through no choice of their own, wandered into. It’s no big moral deal; which doesn’t mean, I hasten to add, that plagiarism shouldn’t be punished — if you’re in our house, you’ve got to play by our rules — just that what you’re punishing is a breach of disciplinary decorum, not a breach of the moral universe.
[more]

[http://nyti.ms/cAa1WF]

See Also >The P-Word II > The Ontology of Plagiarism: Part Two > Get A Clue

[http://bit.ly/aI2mmE]
As Some May Know I Have A Different View On The P-Word >

NYTimes > Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age

[http://bit.ly/bEYvK7]

/Gerry

Tuesday, 10 August 2010

_NatureNews_ > Special > Science Metrics


Assessing Assessment > Transparency, education and communication are key to ensuring that appropriate metrics are used to measure individual scientific achievement / 16 June 2010


Do Metrics Matter? > Many researchers believe that quantitative metrics determine who gets hired and who gets promoted at their institutions. With an exclusive poll and interviews, Nature probes to what extent metrics are really used that way  / 16 June 2010

A Profusion Of Measures > Scientific performance indicators are proliferating — leading researchers to ask afresh what they are measuring and why. Richard Van Noorden surveys the rapidly evolving ecosystem / 16 June 2010

Science Economics: What Science Is Really Worth > Spending on science is one of the best ways to generate jobs and economic growth, say research advocates. But as Colin Macilwain reports, the evidence behind such claims is patchy / 9 June 2010

How To Improve The Use Of Metrics >Since the invention of the science citation index in the 1960s, quantitative measuring of the performance of researchers has become ever more prevalent, controversial and influential. Six commentators tell Nature what changes might ensure that individuals are assessed more fairly / 16 June 2010

Let's Make Science Metrics More Scientific > To capture the essence of good science, stakeholders must combine forces to create an open, sound and consistent system for measuring all the activities that make up academic productivity, says Julia Lane / 24 March 2010

[more]

Source And All Links Available From

[http://bit.ly/a91Gjn]

Related > UnRelated > Related

WP > Why We Get Things So Wrong > Books by Kathryn Schulz and David H. Freedman

[http://bit.ly/d6H1fM]

Sunday, 8 August 2010

The Vanguard Factor > Metrics For Ideas Before Their Time(s)

Colleagues/

I am posting to ask if you are aware of any efforts that have/seek to create (a) metric(s) that measure the The Prescience Of Citations(s) > Publication(s) >  Research > Scholarship > Work > Etc. Relative To Current / Recent Citations(s) > Publication(s) > Research > Scholarship > Work > Etc.

That Is >>>

Are there Measures of Previous Activities that have / now been (more) widely Cited > Quoted > Etc > ?

In Short >

Are There Any/All Measure(s) Of The Impact of Those Who Knew / Saw The Future > Before Their Time ? (But Enough About Me [:-)])



Certainly Citaton Analyses / Studies Are One Metric > > >

And I am aware of "A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures", which I blogged just over a year ago >>>

Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R, 2009 A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures. PLoS ONE 4(6): e6022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022

Background

The impact of scientific publications has traditionally been expressed in terms of citation counts. However, scientific activity has moved online over the past decade. To better capture scientific impact in the digital era, a variety of new impact measures has been proposed on the basis of social network analysis and usage log data. Here we investigate how these new measures relate to each other, and how accurately and completely they express scientific impact.

[more]


[BTW: Thanks Stevan Harnad For The Reminder / I Will ReVisit]

But ...

>>> What I Sense Is Much More Dynamic And Broader >>> Here Goes >>>

To What Degree Can One ***Measure and Incorporate***  >>>

The *Weight* of a subsequently highly-cited ; highly-linked ; highly-shared  ; etc. Article / Idea  / Work >>> That Was Initially Dismissed or Rejected

For Example >

[snip]

Rejecting Nobel-Class Papers

On some occasions, referees have advised editors to reject papers which reported findings that eventually earned the Nobel Prize for their authors.

Documented cases of such rejection include Severo Ochoa’s work on polynucleotide phosphorylase (Ochoa 1980); Hans Krebs’ account of the citric acid cycle (Dixon 1989); Rosalind Yalow’s initial work on radioimmunoassay (Yalow 1982); Murray Gell-Mann’s work on quarks (Crozon 1987); and Harmut Michel’s research on photosynthetic processes (Garfield 1989a). [snip]

Juan Miguel Campanario, “Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles. Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations," Science Communication 16 no. 3. (March 1995): 306-325.


BTW: We would not only focus on Nobel Prize winners; certainly less Noble [:-)] individuals should be considered  >>>

And 

Would Not The ***Number of Rejections*** prior to eventual publication and high-citations / Etc. be an Indicator of 

???  >>>Prescience <<< ???
And

Could Other Negative Actions (Criticism ; Protests ; Bad Reviews ; Etc.)  Of A Work That Subsequently Became Widely Recognized As Innovative / Insightful / Pioneering / Etc. [?] Also Be Another Component Of

??? >>> The Vanguard Factor <<< ???
And

Could The Lag Time Between Original Publication / Presentation  / Etc. And Subsequent Adoption (At Various Thesholds) Be Useful, That Is >>>

The Longer It Took For An Idea To Become Widely Accepted (At Specific Thesholds), The Greater The Vanguard Factor ?

Others ? >>>

Your (Prescient [:-)] Thoughts  ? / Please Leave As A Comment >>>

BTW:  I've been/will be in touch with The Usual Suspects > Stevan, Gene, Barry, two of whom are native Bronxites like myself [To my knowledge Stevan is not [:-)]

!!! Thanks A Million !!!

/Gerry

" There Is Nothing More Powerful Than An Idea Whose Time Has Come!" / Victor Hugo

"There Is Nothing More Powerful Than An Idea Whose Time Has Come!"

Girls Generation - Korean