Arxiv-based commenting resources by and for astrophysicists and physicists: An initial survey

Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices - Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Electronic Publishing

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 100-117

  Marra, Monica ^a  

^a INAF OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

ArXiv; Astrophysics; Open commenting; Open science; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

ASTROPHYSICS; ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING; SURVEYS;

ARXIV; ESSENTIAL FEATURES; OPEN COMMENTING; OPEN SCIENCE; RESEARCH COMMUNITIES; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SPECIFIC AREAS; WEB 2.0;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85020744602     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-769-6-100     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (43)

1. B. Kramer and J. Bosman, 400+ Tools and innovations in scholarly communication (2015), available at: http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list.
2. S. Gass, Transforming scientific communication for the 21st century, Science and Technology Libraries 19 (2001), 3-18.
3. P. Ginsparg, After Dinner Remarks, 14 Oct '94. APS meeting at LANL (1994), available at: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/physics/blurb/pg14Oct94.html.
4. P. Ginsparg, First Steps Towards Electronic Research Communication, Computers in Physics 8 (1994), 390-396.
5. M.A. Rodriguez, J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel, The Convergence of Digital-Libraries and the PeerReview Process, Journal of Information Science 32 (2006), 149-159.
6. T. O'Reilly, What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software (2005), avalable at: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
7. P. Ginsparg, Can peer review be better focused? Science & Technology Libraries 22 (2002), 5-17.
8. D. Taraborelli, Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP '08), Carry-Le-Rouet, May 20-23, 2008, P. Hassanaly, A. Ramrajsingh, D. Randall, P. Salembier and M. Tixier, eds, Institut d'Etudes Politiques d'Aix-en-Provence. Aix-en-Provence, pp. 99-110. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/8279/1/8279.pdf.
9. A. Birukou, J. Rushton Wakeling, C. Bartolini, F. Casati, M. Marchese, K. Mirylenka et al., Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 5 (2011). Available at: http://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056.
10. M. Nentwich, R. Koenig, Cyberscience 2.0. Research in the Age of Digital Social Networks, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt-am-Mein, 2012.
11. P. Dall'Aglio, Peer-review and journal models (2006). Available at: arXiv:physics/0608307v1.
12. M. Baez, A. Birukou, R. Chenu, M. Medo, N. Osman, D. Ponte et al. State of the Art in Scientific Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, Evaluation and Maintenance (Tech. Rep. # DISI-09-067). University of Trento, Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science, Trento, Italy, (2009). Available at: http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1773/.
13. I. Rowlands, D. Nicholas, B. Russell, N. Canty and A. Watkinson, Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing 24 (2011), 183-195.
14. A. Fresco-Santalla and T. Hernández-Pérez, Current and evolving models of peer review, The Serials Librarian 67 (2014), 373-398.
15. C. Sugimoto, S. Work, V. Larivière and S. Haustein, Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature (2016). Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08112.
16. P. Polydoratou and M. Moyle, Exploring aspects of scientific publishing in astrophysics and cosmology: the views of scientists, in: Metadata and Semantics. Post-proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research, MTSR 2007, Corfu Island in Greece, 1-2 October 2007, M.-A. Sicilia & M. D. Lytras, eds, Springer, New York, 2007, pp. 179-190.
17. D. Harley, S.K. Acord, S. Earl-Novell, S. Lawrence, and C.J. King, (2010). Chapter 3.: Astrophysics case study, in: Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines, Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley: UC Berkeley, 2010, pp. 138-206.
18. M. Marra, Professional social networks among Italian astrophysicists. Prospective changes in validation and dissemination practices? Information Services and Use 35 (2015), 243-249.
19. A. Delfanti, Beams of particles and papers: How digital preprint archives shape authorship and credit, Social Studies of Science 46 (2016), 629-645.
20. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, K. Holmberg, I. Peters and V. Larivière, Astrophysicists on twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior, Aslib Journal of Information Management 66 (2014), 279-296.
21. S. Haustein, T.D. Bowman, B. Macaluso, C. Sugimoto and V. Larivière, Measuring Twitter activity of arXiv e-prints and published papers, in: Altmetrics14 an ACM Web Science Conference, 2014, pp. 138-206. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041514.
22. K. Holmberg, T.D. Bowman, S. Haustein and I. Peters, Astrophysicists' Conversational Connections on Twitter. PLOSone 9 (2014), e106086. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106086.
23. S. Ritson, "Crackpots" and "active researchers": The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere. Social Studies of Science 46 (2016), 607-628.
24. P. Ginsparg, ArXiv at 20, Nature 476 (2011), 145-147.
25. O.Y. Rieger, G. Steinhart and D. Cooper, ArXiv@25: Key findings of a user survey (2016). Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08212.
26. O.Y. Rieger, J. Entwood, C. McLaren, S. Payette and G. Steinhart, arXiv Update - January 2017. Available at: https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/arxivpub/arXiv+Update+-+January+2017.
27. J.W.T. Smith, The deconstructed journal: a new model for academic publishing, Learned Publishing 12 (1999), 79-91.
28. J. Brown, An introduction to overlay journals (2010). Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/19081/1/19081.pdf.
29. J. Priem and B.H. Hemminger, Decoupling the Scholarly Journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6 (2012).
30. J. Cartwright, Fledgling site challenges arXiv server, PhysicsWorld. Available at: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jul/15/fledgling-site-challenges-arxiv-server.
31. P.E. Gibbs, A good year for ViXra. Prespacetime Journal 4 (2013), 87-90.
32. R.J. Knegjens, Paperscape. Available at: http://robjk.net/paperscape.
33. S.M. Hitchcock, Perspectives in Electronic Publishing: Experiments with a New Electronic Journal Model. PhD thesis in Engineering And Applied Science, University of Southampton, 2002. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/258233/2/prelims.pdf.
34. P. Polydoratou and M. Moyle, Exploring overlay journals: the RIOJA project [slides of the talk], in: OAI5. CERN workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication. Geneva, 2007 (online). Available at: http://indico.cern.ch/event/5710/contributions/1212287/attachments/988173/1405151/Presentation-OAI5-Polydoratou.pdf
35. P. Polydoratou and M. Moyle, Scientific journals, overlays and repositories: a case study of costs and sustainability issues, in: Digital Libraries: Universal and Ubiquitous Access to Information, 11th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, ICADL 2008, G. Buchanan, M. Masoodian and S. J. Cunningham, eds, Springer, Berlin, 2012, pp.154-163.
36. M. Moyle and A. Lewis, RIOJA (Repository Interface to Journal Archives) Final Report. 2008. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/12562/1/12562.pdf.
37. M. Cassella and L. Calvi, New journal models and publishing perspectives in the evolving digital environment, IFLA Journal 36 (2010), 1-12.
38. P. Coles, A Modest Proposal - The Open Journal of Astrophysics | In the Dark on WordPress.com, July 17, 2012, available at: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/a-modest-proposal-the-open-journal-of-astrophysics/.
39. P. Coles, The Open Journal is Open for Submissions, | In the Dark on WordPress.com, December 22, 2015, available at: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/the-open-journal-is-open-for-submissions/.
40. E. Gibney, Open journals that piggyback on arXiv gather momentum. Nature 530 (4 february 2016), 117-118.
41. F. Bocchino, J. Lopez-Santiago, F. Albacete-Colombo and N. Bucciantini, YouASTRO: a web-based bibliography management system with distributed comments and rating features for astrophysical ADS papers, in: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI, P. Ballester, D. Egret and N. Lorente, eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific. San Francisco, 2012, pp. 889-892. Available at: http://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes/article-details/?paper-id=34807.
42. C. Lee, Open peer review by a selected-papers network, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6 (2012). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00001.
43. A. Boldt, Extending ArXiv.org in order to achieve open peer review and publishing, Journal of Scholarly Publishing 42 (2011), 238-242.