W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

Re: The status of Semantic Web community- perspective from Scopus and Web Of Science (WOS)

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:29:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4B77D09E.4090202@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Frank Manola wrote:
> b.  referring to Jeremy's comment, if the W3C recs were really widely cited (and at least some were typically cited once they were actually recs, even in academic papers), why didn't they come up in the analysis more frequently?  

Because they're not recognized as academic publications (which is correct, 
they're not).

But I thought Jeremy's comment about the better review process was so perfectly 
to the point.

Just the other day I attended a talk by Richard Smith, an ex editor of BMJ, 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smith_(editor)) who was making a very 
compelling case that the current academic publishing process is completely 
broken (echoed in his publications at 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383755/?tool=pmcentrez and 
http://jopm.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/12/25, both linked from the wikipedia 
page).

What was really interesting for me is that what he suggests as an alternative is 
in many ways exactly what we are tryimng to achieve for research data using the 
"Semantic Web".  So in a sense, the problem here is one for us (as a community) 
to fix :)

...

I'll also comment, in passing, that I was very interested to see that Ying 
Ding's conclusions about rising topics for study seemed, in my personal view, to 
be spot on.  So, ad-hominem aside, the review process adopted might have some 
real value in spotting useful trends.

#g
--
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 11:04:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:34 GMT