Abstract
We welcome the commentary by L. Egghe (Scientometrics, this issue) stimulating discussion on our recent article “Natural selection of academic papers” (NSAP) (Scientometrics, 85(2):553–559, 2010) that focuses on an important modern issue at the heart of the scientific enterprise—the open and continuous evaluation and evolution of research. We are also grateful to the editor of Scientometrics for giving us the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments by L. Egghe that we believe are inaccurate or require further comment.
References
Egghe, L. Problems with “natural selection of academic papers”. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0395-9.
Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics, 85(2), 553–559.
Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). The roads to open access. In: World Social Science Report 2010 ( pp. 307–309). UNESCO
Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17(3), 219–224.
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y. et al. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36–40.
Xia, J. (2007). Disciplinary repositories in the social sciences. In: ASLIB Proceedings New Information Perspectives (Vol. 59, pp. 528–538). London: Aslib.
Chan, L., & Costa, S. (2005). Participation in the global knowledge commons: Challenges and opportunities for research dissemination in developing countries. New Library World, 106(3/4), 141–163.
Evans, J. A., & Reimer, J. (2009). Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323(5917), 1025.
Barcinski, M. A. (2003). Disruption to science in developing countries. Nature, 423(6939), 480–480.
Kirsop, B., & Chan, L. (2005). Transforming access to research literature for developing countries. Serials Review, 31(4), 246–255.
Habib, A. (2010). Challenging the international academic publishing industry. In: World Social Science Report 2010. UNESCO, p. 311.
Taylor, M., Perakakis, P., & Trachana, V. (2008). The siege of science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics(ESEP), 8(1), 17–40.
Moed, H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 497.
Scully, C., & Lodge, H. (2005). Impact factors and their significance; overrated or misused?. British Dental Journal, 198(7), 391–393.
Gura, T. (2002). Scientific publishing: Peer review, unmasked. Nature, 416(6878), 258–260.
Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2762.
Wilson, R. (2006). ‘Referee factor’ would reward a vital contribution. Nature, 441(7095), 812.
Raymond, E. S. (1999). The Cathedral & the Bazaar. Sebastapol: O’Reilly (in press).
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A., & Lautrup, B. (2005). Life, death and preferential attachment. Europhysics Letters, 69, 298.
Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by twitter. Nature, 469, 286–287.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M.G. et al. Understanding the role of open peer review and dynamic academic articles. Scientometrics 88, 669–673 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0402-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0402-1