Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Wit's End

Graph Cameron Neylon alerted me to this post yesterday: What happens when you tweet an Open Access Paper. Oddly, this reflects pretty accurately part of the discussion I was having with Chris Willmott yesterday morning. I wrote about my own experience of this recently - By The Numbers - A Note To Journal Editors:
In the 10 days to 30th September, this item received:
534 hits on the landing page
122 PDF downloads
It's difficult to assess how this compares with"conventional" academic publishing, because beyond citations, I don't really have comparable numbers. I also don't know how these figures will decay with time.
What I do know is that on 7th July I submitted a similar manuscript to a "conventional" academic journal. On 7th October, it has still not been reviewed.

Update: How to fix academic publishing again already

I'm on the point of giving up on submitting papers to "conventional" academic journals, and going down the route of putting my research online and promoting it via social channels.

Somebody stop me.


  1. As they say in SA: Ja, boet...! Wryly. I think conventional peer review is now so strained as to be generally broken. Meaning that either reviews are so cursory as to not be worth reading, or of such variable quality as to necessitate further reviews...which may be so cursory as to...!? You get my problem?

    I think a post-publishing review model is a MUCH better idea: if people find something interesting, they will download it - and comment on it, ESPECIALLY if it is garbage.

    Which is not to imply anything about your offerings, AJ B-)

  2. Can you put a preprint in Nature Precedings? That would at least give you a DOI and access for potential post-pub reviewers/users/collaborators etc.

  3. @Bill, the work I do these days isn't in the remit of any branch of the Nature empire, but it's frustrating that we don't have an educational journal following the post-publication peer review model.

  4. "'s frustrating that we don't have an educational journal following the post-publication peer review model."

    I sense an opening, here, AJ...???

  5. I'm not about to go into the publishing business on my own account :-)