Comments on: Nature Precedings http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/ blog sobre diseño de interacción Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:04:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Santosh Patnaik http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Santosh Patnaik Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:34:20 +0000 http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/#comment-90 Nature Precedings needs to have a good rating system for open, community-based review to work well. Currently, submitted articles can be voted for, but that does not tell one how many would have voted against it. Nor does one get to know the negative points unless they go through the whole article themselves. Such negative points may have been mentioned in some comments but they are not easy to spot. Further, one is usually disinclined to write textual comments unless one has a strong interest to do so. With open preprint systems, being able to find useful and reliable ideas and data in articles is perhaps more important than being able to submit one. This becomes apparent as the number of articles increase, when searching can return hundreds and thousands of articles. One can’t go through all of them, and a few ‘bad’ articles can easily cause frustration and distrust in the quality of the submissions. But if search criteria can include objective measures of article quality, then one can indeed easily find valuable material. Nature Precedings should therefore opt for a point-based rating system where different aspects of articles can be appraised. Thus, instead of just letting one vote for an article, one should be allowed to rate its different aspects on, say, a 1-5 scale. Such aspects can include: 1. clarity 2. originality 3. novelty 4. presence and quality of experimental data 5. logical procession 6. depth 7. proper referencing In effect, this would be a proper peer-review system. The ratings, both their average and their spread, should be displayed alongside articles. A good review/rating system will discourage submission of bad articles, build trust in the usability and reliability of content in Nature Precedings, and encourage quality submissions. (similar comments posted elsewhere on the web by me) Nature Precedings needs to have a good rating system for open, community-based review to work well. Currently, submitted articles can be voted for, but that does not tell one how many would have voted against it. Nor does one get to know the negative points unless they go through the whole article themselves. Such negative points may have been mentioned in some comments but they are not easy to spot. Further, one is usually disinclined to write textual comments unless one has a strong interest to do so.

With open preprint systems, being able to find useful and reliable ideas and data in articles is perhaps more important than being able to submit one. This becomes apparent as the number of articles increase, when searching can return hundreds and thousands of articles. One can’t go through all of them, and a few ‘bad’ articles can easily cause frustration and distrust in the quality of the submissions.

But if search criteria can include objective measures of article quality, then one can indeed easily find valuable material. Nature Precedings should therefore opt for a point-based rating system where different aspects of articles can be appraised.

Thus, instead of just letting one vote for an article, one should be allowed to rate its different aspects on, say, a 1-5 scale. Such aspects can include:

1. clarity
2. originality
3. novelty
4. presence and quality of experimental data
5. logical procession
6. depth
7. proper referencing

In effect, this would be a proper peer-review system.

The ratings, both their average and their spread, should be displayed alongside articles.

A good review/rating system will discourage submission of bad articles, build trust in the usability and reliability of content in Nature Precedings, and encourage quality submissions.

(similar comments posted elsewhere on the web by me)

]]> By: yusef http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/comment-page-1/#comment-69 yusef Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:49:25 +0000 http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/#comment-69 jajaja, bueno, yo de estas cosas me quedo en la forma más que en el contenido, porque sólo me faltaba ponerme a leer papers de inmunología... jajaja, bueno, yo de estas cosas me quedo en la forma más que en el contenido, porque sólo me faltaba ponerme a leer papers de inmunología…

]]> By: Agustín Jiménez http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/comment-page-1/#comment-66 Agustín Jiménez Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:29:33 +0000 http://www.human-computer.net/blog/2007/06/18/nature-procedings/#comment-66 uh! qué descubrimiento. Otra cosita más con la que procastinar. Entre los curos del MIT Opencourseware y los papers de Nature...nos vamos a convertir en cerebritos... :P uh! qué descubrimiento. Otra cosita más con la que procastinar. Entre los curos del MIT Opencourseware y los papers de Nature…nos vamos a convertir en cerebritos… :P

]]>