Comments on: community-based filtering

By: Jenna Pack

Jenna Pack — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 01:51:26 +0000

I’m also wondering if it could be an issue of knowledge about this site. Perhaps many scholars are unaware of its existence. Similarly, I think there’s still a fear of intellectual property rights, etc., with disseminating one’s work online in an open peer review format (or just distributing your work online in general). Scholars who publish on this site are not getting paid, correct? They are similarly not going to get the same kind of status they would get from publishing in a blind PR’ed journal. This obviously feeds into the exact concerns you deal with, which need to be changed. Yet, I do think some of these concerns must also contribute to the lack of work published on Philica.

By: George Carr

George Carr — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:59:49 +0000

By January 2010, the site’s article count is up to only 178, truly paltry. So your point about the lack of focus being fatal is well taken.

By: Kathleen Fitzpatrick

Kathleen Fitzpatrick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:25:37 +0000

Interesting — so we’re becoming focused on the mere fact that research is being done? Or “research” as a euphemism for grants and patents?

By: Nick Mirzoeff

Nick Mirzoeff — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:20:36 +0000

I have a feeling that ‘excellence’ has been replaced by ‘research’ as in ‘world-class research,’ a phrase I hear all the time as if it explained itself. Research is an end in itself, validated by the award of research grants and is therefore quantifiable. Medical school faculty are now often expected to generate a minimum quantity of research funds–or have their salary cut.

By: Gene Golovchinsky

Gene Golovchinsky — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:57:33 +0000

I love the sentence “Scholarly communication, generally speaking, is all tail…”

By: Katherine Rowe

Katherine Rowe — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:07:07 +0000

I am finding this section quite powerful.