info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scholarly Kitchen, COPE and PubMed Commons fulfil some of goals of bionet.journals.note
1 view
Skip to first unread message
fors...@queensu.ca
Apr 12, 2018, 12:19:29 PM4/12/18
to
When I initiated bionet.journals.note with the support of various publishing houses in 1994 I had high hopes. Unfortunately, I was unable to monitor and reject junk postings and, as can be viewed here, the quality and frequency of postings have deteriorated over the years. However, in case you are new to this area, please note that some of the aspired functions of bionet.journals.note can now be found in the pages of The Scholarly Kitchen, which is run by folk connected with the publishing industry, and is carefully monitored.
The publishing industry has also established COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), which, as its title suggests, also has the potential to serve some of the aspired functions of bionet.journals.note.
Another promising avenue was provided by PubMed Commons that was established by the NCBI (National Center for Biological Information at the NIH, USA) in 2013. This allowed post-publication peer-review by certified, non-anonymous, volunteers from the scientific community. Unfortunately, after 5 years of often quite excellent postings, recently this fell by the wayside. A promising replacement that is slowly evolving is PubPeer, which is privately funded, requires no certification, and allows anonymity.
Nevertheless, it would be nice if there were someone out there who might reinvigorate bionet.journals.note and establish a board of monitors, who might take turns in monitoring postings.
Donald R. Forsdyke,
Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences,
Queen's University, Canada
The publishing industry has also established COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), which, as its title suggests, also has the potential to serve some of the aspired functions of bionet.journals.note.
Another promising avenue was provided by PubMed Commons that was established by the NCBI (National Center for Biological Information at the NIH, USA) in 2013. This allowed post-publication peer-review by certified, non-anonymous, volunteers from the scientific community. Unfortunately, after 5 years of often quite excellent postings, recently this fell by the wayside. A promising replacement that is slowly evolving is PubPeer, which is privately funded, requires no certification, and allows anonymity.
Nevertheless, it would be nice if there were someone out there who might reinvigorate bionet.journals.note and establish a board of monitors, who might take turns in monitoring postings.
Donald R. Forsdyke,
Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences,
Queen's University, Canada
Robert Ancuceanu
Apr 12, 2018, 2:13:40 PM4/12/18
to fors...@queensu.ca, jrnl...@magpie.bio.indiana.edu
I would be willing to bring my contribution, but I would need more info on what would be expected from us and on what periodicity basis.
Kind regards, Robert Ancuceanu, RPh, PhD
Faculty of Pharmacy
University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, Bucharest
My university: http://www.umfcaroldavila.ro/
My department: http://www.botanica-farmaceutica.ro/
My freelancer website: www.regaffairs.ro
My Romanian blog: http://ancuceanu.wordpress.com/
My English blog: http://ancuceanu.blogspot.ro/
Phone: +40737139588
If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. (An African proverb).
This message is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
Faculty of Pharmacy
University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, Bucharest
My university: http://www.umfcaroldavila.ro/
My department: http://www.botanica-farmaceutica.ro/
My freelancer website: www.regaffairs.ro
My Romanian blog: http://ancuceanu.wordpress.com/
My English blog: http://ancuceanu.blogspot.ro/
Phone: +40737139588
If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. (An African proverb).
This message is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________
Jrnlnote mailing list
Jrnl...@net.bio.net
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/jrnlnote
fors...@queensu.ca
Apr 12, 2018, 2:26:41 PM4/12/18
to
Dear Dr. Ancuceanu (see his email below),
I had no idea people were still looking at Bionet.journals.note and am happy at your rapid reply to my posting about an hour ago. As you can imagine since I started this in 1992, I am of advanced years and unable to contribute. What is needed is someone to organize, using whatever mechanisms Google.groups (and/or the Indiana repository) allow. It could be run solo, but that would (i) be laborious and (ii) tend to dictatorship rather than democracy. Thus, it would be better that a group, with term memberships, be established for the monitoring role. If running smoothly, you would need to do nothing except wave your baton and respond to appeals when posters contested a decision.
I had no idea people were still looking at Bionet.journals.note and am happy at your rapid reply to my posting about an hour ago. As you can imagine since I started this in 1992, I am of advanced years and unable to contribute. What is needed is someone to organize, using whatever mechanisms Google.groups (and/or the Indiana repository) allow. It could be run solo, but that would (i) be laborious and (ii) tend to dictatorship rather than democracy. Thus, it would be better that a group, with term memberships, be established for the monitoring role. If running smoothly, you would need to do nothing except wave your baton and respond to appeals when posters contested a decision.
0 new messages