_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]

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]

[http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2009/06/principal-component-analysis-of-39.html]

[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.

[http://www2.uah.es/jmc/ai2.pdf]

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

[http://bit.ly/b2i4Yl]

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla]

"Its Not About Publication; It's About Ideas !"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison]

The Scientist > August 2010 > Peer Review Rejected

The August 2010 Issue Of The Scientist Features

Great Articles About Peer Review

Editorial > Peer Review and the Age of Aquarius / Sarah Greene

[snip]

More than 300 years since the invention of peer review and 30 years post-Web, it’s time to act. Lest we forget, the Web was originally designed to disrupt scientific publishing, as recently noted by Michael Clarke in the Scholarly Kitchen blog.

The first major disruption has been open access (OA) publishing, a prerequisite for the new metrics, which thrive on increasing numbers of papers and data. And despite its fledgling status, OA has ushered in a second major disruption to the scientific establishment: post-publication peer review (PPPR), in a variety of experiments and formulations, pioneered by BioMedCentral and PubMedCentral.

[snip]

 Thus, transparency and ongoing scrutiny by a much wider community can minimize the failures of traditional peer review (depicted on the cover of this issue), and can also bring to light innovations and discoveries that may have been ahead of the curve at the time of publication. Robust involvement by the community is required, and proposed “reputation systems” may be the key to ensure rewards for commenting and revising.

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57580/#ixzz0vqVNNNyq]

Article 1 > Breakthroughs from the Second Tier / The Scientist Staff

Peer review isn’t perfect— meet 5 high-impact papers that should have ended up in bigger journal

[snip]

One of the most commonly voiced criticisms of traditional peer review is that it discourages truly innovative ideas, rejecting field-changing papers while publishing ideas that fall into a status quo and the “hot” fields of the day—think RNAi, etc. Another is that it is nearly impossible to immediately spot the importance of a paper—to truly evaluate a paper, one needs months, if not years, to see the impact it has on its field.

In the following pages, we present some papers that suggest these two criticisms are correct, at least in part. These studies were published in lower-profile journals (all with current impact factors of 6 or below), suggesting they should have had less of an impact. But these papers eventually accumulated at least 1,000 citations. Many were rejected from higher-tier journals. All changed their fields forever.

Twenty years ago, David Kaplan of the Case Western Reserve University had a manuscript rejected, and with it came what he calls a “ridiculous” comment. “The comment was essentially that I should do an x-ray crystallography of the molecule before my study could be published,” he recalls, but the study was not about structure. The x-ray crystallography results, therefore, “had nothing to do with that,” he says. To him, the reviewer was making a completely unreasonable request to find an excuse to reject the paper.

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/30/1/]

Article 2 > I Hate Your Paper / Jef Akst

Kaplan says these sorts of manuscript criticisms are a major problem with the current peer review system, particularly as it’s employed by higher-impact journals. Theoretically, peer review should “help [authors] make their manuscript better,” he says, but in reality, the cutthroat attitude that pervades the system results in ludicrous rejections for personal reasons—if the reviewer feels that the paper threatens his or her own research or contradicts his or her beliefs, for example—or simply for convenience, since top journals get too many submissions and it’s easier to just reject a paper than spend the time to improve it. Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same, and it’s a “problem,” Kaplan says, “that can very quickly become censorship.”

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/36/1/]

Associated Podcast /  Comments Available At

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/36/1/#audio1]

Article 3 > Is Peer Review Broken?

Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What's wrong with peer review?

[http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/] / Subscriber Access

Related > Citations: Too Many, or Not Enough?  / William J. Pearce

[snip]

The introduction of PubMed in the mid-1990s revolutionized the process of finding and retrieving relevant literature. With much of the drudgery and inconvenience gone, long lists of potentially important publications could be compiled quickly and easily on any computer with an Internet connection. The parallel development of reference database management software further expanded the ability to compile and organize large numbers of abstracts, and ultimately article PDFs.

On one hand, these impressive tools greatly facilitated preparation of comprehensive literature reviews with unprecedented breadth. On the other hand, easy access to so many publications reinforced the temptation to read each paper cited less critically, and sometimes not at all. Thus was born the practice of citing numerous diverse publications to support a point of discussion, instead of citing the one or two most relevant publications with the greatest impact on a field, as if quantity and quality of citations were interchangeable and equally persuasive. [snip]

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/29/1/]

>>> As Some May Know I've Long Had An Interest In Alternative Peer Review >>>

"Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship"

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt]

> >> It's A Large PPT (200+ Slides) >>>

>>> But IMHO ... Well Worth The Experience [:-)] <<<

A Synopsis Of The Presentation In Article Form >>>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Easy_Pieces]

"Peer Review in the Internet Age: Five (5) Easy Pieces," Against the Grain 16, no. 3 (June 2004): 50, 52-55.

Self-archived at

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/FiveEasyPieces.pdf]

See Also

> Invisible Hand(s): Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving

[http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2007/11/invisible-hands-quality-assurance-in.html]

>> Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving 

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/ACRL2005.ppt] / 110+ Slides

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/ACRL2005.pdf]

"It's Not About Publication; It's About Ideas"

NYTimes > Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age

Friends/

[snip]

TRIP GABRIEL / August 1, 2010 / NYTimes

[snip]

Professors used to deal with plagiarism by admonishing students to give credit to others and to follow the style guide for citations, and pretty much left it at that.

But these cases — typical ones, according to writing tutors and officials responsible for discipline at the three schools who described the plagiarism — suggest that many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed

It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information, say educators who study plagiarism.

Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy, of course. But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students — who came of age with music file-sharing, Wikipedia and Web-linking — understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image.

[snip]

Ms. Brookover, who works at the campus library, has pondered the differences between researching in the stacks and online. “Because you’re not walking into a library, you’re not physically holding the article, which takes you closer to ‘this doesn’t belong to me,’ ” she said. Online, “everything can belong to you really easily.”

[snip]

In an interview, ... [Susan D. Blum University of Notre Dame anthropologist ... and author of "Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture" [Cornell Universiy Press, 2009], said the idea of an author whose singular effort creates an original work is rooted in Enlightenment ideas of the individual. It is buttressed by the Western concept of intellectual property rights as secured by copyright law. But both traditions are being challenged.

[snip]

In an interview, she said the idea of an author whose singular effort creates an original work is rooted in Enlightenment ideas of the individual. It is buttressed by the Western concept of intellectual property rights as secured by copyright law. But both traditions are being challenged.

[more]

Source

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html]

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 That I Have A Different View Of The P-Word [:-)

Regards,

/Gerry

“Food Deserts”: Fertile Ground for Socially-Minded Entrepreneurs

Adminstrator's note: The following piece was written by SSL Guest Contributor Ifeoma Ajunwa and was reposted from RightRespect. Ifeoma is about to begin her Ph.D at Columbia University in Sociology. She can be reached at iajunwa@gmail.com for comments.)


In honor of Maryland’s passage of the nation’s first “Benefit Corporation” bill signed into law today, we have collaborated with our contributor Ifeoma Ajunwa to address an area ripe for socially-minded entrepreneurs, eliminating food deserts and promoting the right to food here in the United States.

Access to healthful food is a human rights issue. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[i] which is adopted by the United Nations affirmed that: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” “Food deserts[ii]” are community areas with little or no access to affordable, quality, and nutritious food. These communities, found in such cities as Detroit, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Newark, and most of which are largely populated by blacks and Latinos, suffer from a dearth of supermarkets, and can only rely on fast-food chains and corner stores that sell mostly liquor and some produce at exorbitant prices. About 23 million people, of whom about 6.5 million are children, inhabit low-income urban and rural spaces where the nearest supermarket is more than a mile away — keeping in mind that many low-income families can not afford a car. For an extreme example, nearly 633,000 of Chicago’s population live in communities that lack nearby supermarkets[iii].

Recently, First Lady Michelle Obama penned a cover story for Newsweek magazine in which she detailed her fight against the growing rates of obesity in school age American children. Obesity brings with it a host of health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Further, high obesity rates negatively impact the economy as millions of tax-payer dollars are spent each year in treating the chronic diseases that stem from it. Since, as the First Lady noted, a third of American children are either overweight or obese, the fight against obesity is a matter of national concern.

In an effort to combat this problem, the First Lady has launched “Let’s Move[iv],” a program that employs several different tactics to help children and their parents towards the goal of a healthy weight. The strategies include: offering parents the tools to make better food choices for their children; a push towards more healthful food options at schools via the Healthier US Schools Challenge Program and the updating of the Child Nutrition Act; more physical activities for children; and the elimination of “food deserts.”

As part of the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the Administration proposes the Healthy Food Financing Initiative which will invest $400 million a year to fund innovative projects that bring grocery stores to “food deserts” and other underserved areas. The Administration also plans to use grants to entice farmer’s markets and fresh food services to areas where they are currently lacking.

Not only will the elimination of “food deserts” boost the health of many of America’s population, the financial incentives for doing so will also revitalize the economy by providing new opportunities for entrepreneurship.

There are several pioneers who can serve as positive examples for entrepreneurs willing to take advantage of the fertile business climate of “food deserts.” One such trailblazer is Karriem Beyah[v], who runs Farmers Best Market, a store he recently opened in a predominantly Mexican-American neighborhood of Chicago known as Back of the Yards, and which had been abandoned by large supermarket chains. Another is William Allen[vi], a 2008 recipient of the MacArthur “Genius” award who founded Growing Power, a non-profit farming business. Through Growing Power[vii], Allen uses both rural and urban farming — at sites like Merton, Milwaukee, and Chicago — to bring fresh produce and meat products to low-income urban residents at a reduced price. His organization also offers internships that train minorities, immigrants and other interested participants to produce healthful food in their communities.

With the Obama administration wiling to invest millions of dollars to making the steps of all Americans a bit lighter, socially-minded entrepreneurs need only find a “desert” that needs cultivating to get their businesses off and running.

[i] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
[ii] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/
[iii] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900947,00.html#ixzz0kAnplugn
[iv] http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.letsmove.gov%2F
[v] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900947,00.html
[vi] http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.4537249/
[vii] http://www.growingpower.org/about_us.htm