Re: Elsevier's ChemWeb Preprint Archive

From: Jim Till <till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:29:06 -0400

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, James Weeks wrote [in part]:

[jw]> each article that is submitted to the CPS has its own discussion
[jw]> group where users can comment on the content of the article. It
[jw]> is encouraging that there has been sustained use of these
[jw]> discussion groups. For example, 45 of the 282 preprints submitted
[jw]> now have more than 3 threads in their discussions. I think it will
[jw]> also be interesting to monitor how this feature is used.

Of the three indicators now available via CPS (views per preprint, score
on a 1-5 scale, and number of discussion threads), it's not clear to me
which indicator might be the least susceptible to manipulation. All seem
quite vulnerable to such manipulation.

If any of these three indicators is found to be a reasonably reliable and
valid predictor of subsequent publication in a "brand name" journal, then
its vulnerability to attempts at manipulation (e.g. via deliberate
attempts to initiate more discussion threads) might become a major
concern.

I'd be very interested in any comments that you may have about this
"manipulation issue".

[jw]> It is our intention that the CPS will be [OAI] compliant within the
[jw]> next two months.

Good news!

Jim Till
University of Toronto
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT