- From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:29:50 +0000
- 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 UTC