Waiting for Thomas Kuhn: First Monday and the Evolution of Electronic Journals

Valauskas, Edward J.

doi:10.5210/fm.v2i12.567

Cited by 24 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite obvious benefits in cost, speed, convenience, dissemination and storage space (Odlyzko, 1997; Valuaskas, 1997; Butler, 1999; Kling and McKim, 1999, 2000; Siemens et al., 2001; Tenopir and King, 2001; Godfray, 2002a; Kling et al., 2002; Scoble, 2004; Wheeler et al., 2004), the advent of electronic publishing has placed a strain on the peer‐review process. The number of scholarly resources available on the internet is increasing daily, and many of these resources are disseminated outside the processes traditionally provided by scholarly journals and academic presses.…”

Section: Peer Review Online Publishing and Taxonomic Anarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Prendini¹,

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soleglad and Fet's (2003a) attempt to reconstruct the phylogeny of Recent (including extant) scorpions, the revised classification derived from it, and recent emendations, mostly published in their self-edited online journal, Euscorpius, are deficient. Separate analyses of three independent matrices (morphology, 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA) were presented. In the morphological matrix, 52 binary and 10 tristate trichobothrial characters were replaced with one character comprising six ordered states representing trichobothrial ''types''. The remaining matrix of 105 characters was further reduced to 33 ''fundamental'' characters (20% of the morphological dataset), the analysis of which appears to be the basis for the revised classification presented. The taxon sample for the morphological analysis included 14 supraspecific terminal taxa representing genera, the monophyly of only 7 (12.5%) of which has been confirmed. A composite terminal, assembled from the fragments of fossils that may not be confamilial let alone monophyletic, was created for the Palaeopisthacanthidae, employed as the primary outgroup for the analysis. Other important outgroup taxa, notably eurypterids, xiphosurans and other arachnids, were omitted entirely. The morphological characters presented contained numerous unjustifiable assumptions of character polarity and phylogenetic relationship. An approach to character coding, deliberately adopted to reduce ''homoplasy'', biased the analysis towards a preconceived result. Structurally and topographically similar features in different taxa were explicitly assigned separate (often autapomorphic) states according to presumed phylogenetic relationships among the taxa in which they were observed. Putative ''reversals'' were coded as separate characters or states. Character transformation was forced by ordering, additive coding or Sankoff optimization through allegedly intermediate states for which there is no empirical evidence. Many characters were defined in a manner that demonstrates either a lack of understanding of, or disregard for, established methods and standards of morphological character coding. Some states display overlapping variation whereas others subsume variation that is not structurally or topographically similar. Polymorphic ''states'' were created for terminals with interspecific variation and unknown ''states'' for terminals that should have been scored unknown. Many characters were not evaluated for particular terminal taxa, but merely scored inapplicable although the structures and, consequently, the characters in question are present and therefore applicable to them. In view of the significant theoretical and empirical problems with the approach to cladistics taken by Soleglad and Fet, we find no justification for accepting either the results of their analyses or the revised classification derived from them. Pending the outcome of a rigorous phylogenetic analysis, published according to acceptable standards of scholarship in a peer-reviewed journal, we revert to the suprageneric classific...

show abstract

Section: Peer Review Online Publishing and Taxonomic Anarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Prendini¹,

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Valauskas, for example, notes how different the styles of communication and verification, debate and consensus can be amongst different academic disciplines. 35 It is rather simplistic to say that because self-archiving appears Digital preservation and long-term access to the content of e-serials page 14 of 48 to be accepted by most physicists then it should also be adopted by biomedical researchers or ancient historians. Another possible reason why self-archiving has failed to take off is that scholars and scientists have been reluctant to stop publishing in established high-impact serials.…”

Section: Self-archiving Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Preservation and Long-Term Access to the Content of Electronic Serials

Day

2012

E-Serials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The practice of sending out preprints, although common among many fields of science, has long been established among physicists and many scholars have remarked about this distinctive preprint culture in physics 3 . Physicists have used preprints for over thirty years 4 and the initial electronic equivalents of preprints started about 1991 on a very small scale but rapidly grew to a current astronomical level of tens of thousands transactions per day 5 . The first e-print archive, Los Alamos National Laboratory e-print archive, was established by Paul Ginsparg 6 , a physicist, in 1991.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-print depositing behavior of physicists and astronomers: An intradisciplinary study

Jamali¹,

Nicholas

2009

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the e-print depositing behavior of physicists and astronomers. Fifty-six PhD students and staff at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University College London were interviewed. A survey was also carried out (47.1% response rate). The study investigates the relation between variables such as research area, type of research (theoretical, experimental and so on), and the amount of reading on the patterns of e-print depositing. The findings showed that clear intradisciplinary differences exist among different subfields of physics and astronomy.

show abstract

Waiting for Thomas Kuhn: First Monday and the Evolution of Electronic Journals

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Digital Preservation and Long-Term Access to the Content of Electronic Serials

E-print depositing behavior of physicists and astronomers: An intradisciplinary study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About