The options -- few or many science journals?
PetrF
I understand, there are two options on using WordPress software with
Annotum theme - which supports Open Journal(s) - as destination of
Knols:
1) selfhosted - where user will get his/her own hosting(for $20 to
100 a year)
and can monetize it (e.g. by Google Adsense).
or 2) signup for free account + hosting on Wordpress.com and use
installed Annotum,
for free, but forgo all revenue (in most cases).
In case 2, following the published instructions, as a default, each
knol author will have his/her own
'journal' being editor, referee, author ... , which is defeating the
usual advantages of a
Journal.
Alternative would be for compatible group to form a Journal (Science
Knols Journal),
where group of people would agree to cooperate to be referees,
editors, ..
a bit like when Google Answers was terminated, researches formed their
own website for
paid searching. (http://uclue.com/).
I would consider such cooperation, and I would consider about 10% of
existing 4000 science knols as acceptable.
As an example, all those which mention GOD (undefined term in
Physics)
would be out.
Few of mine, http://knol.google.com/k/petr-frish#, and certainly
others, would be in.
Is anyone interested in such a cooperation?
elle
announcement that Google Knol will close.
Cooperation is fine if you are all like minded on similar topics, and
can get along with one another. It is going to be tricky.
Let me mention some of the things that I have encountered in trying to
find a suitable way to sort out my articles from Knol. Btw, I have
many articles, over 100, and they are long (some over 10K words)
research articles mostly on culture and religious philosophy.
(1) I was and still am looking for a "FREE BLOG SITE" to host the
articles I have written and still by visible to the "search engines."
(2) I have used Google Doc, which as a similar writing format, but it
is overlooked by search engines. I know there is a work around, but I
have not gone into that yet.
(3) I have tried to C&P a Google Doc article to WordPress Annotum.
Using a Safari browser, the C&P functions had many limitations, it was
better when I switched to Firefox. But I found the Annotum writing
tools far from adequate. There is still a lot of hit and miss about
"Save" "Edit" "Draft" functions and it is not that intuitive like the
Google Word Processors.
(4) I have not yet discovered how the Search Engines work with
Annotum.
(5) I have tried Blogger, but this too seems to be invisible to Search
Engines.
(6) Stability is important with such long essays, which includes
illustrations and tables and lots of references.
Anyone with other experiences to relate would be appreciate. Any
suggestions too would assist many readers.
PetrF
On Dec 7, 5:16 pm, elle <mbp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PetrF, most of us have been thrown into a state of confusion with the
> announcement that Google Knol will close.
Yes, indeed. I have been reading upon the options, and will post a
knol on the topic shortly.
The new solution will be more diverse then knol site - and each set or
journal may have different visibility.
Just a quick comment:
> (5) I have tried Blogger, but this too seems to be invisible to Search
> Engines.
I have a blog at blogger for a while, and cannot say it is invisible.
(Neither it has mass following :-)
There is of course a question if it will stay and stay free. It may
follow Knol fate.
From your description I would guess that you own website may be the
best solution.
Where are your knols on the Knol site?
My knols are at
Petr Frish (my knols: http://goo.gl/7Nb90 ) - so it will be the
last one there.
More about the cost in that knol.
elle
http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/-/1l23x9udotn1a/0#knols
I too have been experimenting with relocating some of my Knols, but it
is a slow learning curve. I have moved one or two to "Google Docs" and
here are some of the major problems with "Docs."
(1) Google Docs only allows 1 GB of free space, after that you have to
rent or buy space. Hence it is not a permanent site. When you stop
paying for the space, ie., when you go meet your maker, the site will
disappear because you are not there to pay annually. So the free is
very limited. So no permanency for scientific articles, or cultural
topics, like Wikipedia. etc.
(2) There are fairly still limitations on the posting of images, and
so is rather limited.
(3) But the writing tools are very much the same as that for Google
Knol so the copy and paste is smooth and easy with no problems. They
use the same format.
I have also tried using the Free Wordpress. Of course there are many
programmes for paid programmes, and I am sure that is the purpose of
Wordpress to eventually make everyone pay.
(1) After spending some time learning my way around I have found that
Wordpress is actually very flexible and has many features for the pro.
But it takes time to find out your way around.
(2) Copy & Paste a Knol to Wordpress, is not always very successful
because the format of the two systems is not really compatible. So
After C&P transfer have had to do a Full Edit, to add in paragraphs,
Bold, Italicised and other formats that disappear in the transfer.
This means a lot of extra work for a full edit when many of my
articles are over 10,000 words.
(3) Transfer of images too is not always as expected and I have had to
Undo and Redo many images. So that means extra work.
(4) However there are many videos on Wordpress techniques that is very
useful and I have learned a lot from them, but that means spending
time learning something new.
(5) How much or how long the Free Wordpress will be made available
again is going to be anyone's guess. Sop we are all still up in the
air.
(6) But I would say that Wordpress has the more superior Word
processor for those who do serious writing.
I hope this helps some of you.
> Petr Frish (my knols:http://goo.gl/7Nb90) - so it will be the
Wjhonson
elle
of the Google programmes are intuitive. It is a real shame that Google
Knol will be closing down. Now I will have to the WordPress site as it
offers a good Word Processor. But I have to learn how to use it
properly.
There are many programmes of how to attach Adsense to your programmes,
including WordPress and I will list a few links here:
For Wordpress: http://www.lancelhoff.com/how-to-easily-add-adsense-to-your-wordpress-posts/
For Google sites: http://support.google.com/sites/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=150360
Video for Adsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYA1-TF_6FY
And many more out there.
On Dec 12, 6:58 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have had a sites.google.com site for several years but never used it much. I like the more immediate feel of Knol.
> sites.google.com however does allow me to embed my Adsense ads but I have to figure out a way to create my own per-page counter
> It's probably not too hard, but I just don't know how to do it yet.
>
> It also has a WYWIWYG editor, and straight HTML editor like Knol does.
> But I would miss the community feeling of Knol, where everyone can share ideas and compete for the best articles and so on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: elle <mbp...@gmail.com>
> To: Google Knol Migration <google-kno...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 10:50 am
> Subject: Re: The options -- few or many science journals?
>
> PetrF, Thank you for your comments. All my Knols are at:http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/-/1l23x9udotn1a/0#knols
> I too have been experimenting with relocating some of my Knols, but it
> s a slow learning curve. I have moved one or two to "Google Docs" and
> ere are some of the major problems with "Docs."
> 1) Google Docs only allows 1 GB of free space, after that you have to
> ent or buy space. Hence it is not a permanent site. When you stop
> aying for the space, ie., when you go meet your maker, the site will
> isappear because you are not there to pay annually. So the free is
> ery limited. So no permanency for scientific articles, or cultural
> opics, like Wikipedia. etc.
> 2) There are fairly still limitations on the posting of images, and
> o is rather limited.
> 3) But the writing tools are very much the same as that for Google
> nol so the copy and paste is smooth and easy with no problems. They
> se the same format.
> I have also tried using the Free Wordpress. Of course there are many
> rogrammes for paid programmes, and I am sure that is the purpose of
> ordpress to eventually make everyone pay.
> 1) After spending some time learning my way around I have found that
> ordpress is actually very flexible and has many features for the pro.
> ut it takes time to find out your way around.
> 2) Copy & Paste a Knol to Wordpress, is not always very successful
> ecause the format of the two systems is not really compatible. So
> fter C&P transfer have had to do a Full Edit, to add in paragraphs,
> old, Italicised and other formats that disappear in the transfer.
> his means a lot of extra work for a full edit when many of my
> rticles are over 10,000 words.
> 3) Transfer of images too is not always as expected and I have had to
> ndo and Redo many images. So that means extra work.
> 4) However there are many videos on Wordpress techniques that is very
> seful and I have learned a lot from them, but that means spending
> ime learning something new.
> 5) How much or how long the Free Wordpress will be made available
> gain is going to be anyone's guess. Sop we are all still up in the
> ir.
> 6) But I would say that Wordpress has the more superior Word
CyclemotorEngineer
Good to hear from you.
Thanks for writing your Knol on migration to Annotum. I'm waiting to
learn more about this process, and let the bugs get worked out before
moving my Knols. Your excellent article answered a number of
questions I had about how Annotum works. It also prompted a new
question about peer review.
Regarding formation of a new journal, the missing link for a good open
scientific publishing platform seems to be in the review process. We
don't have a good crowd-source process for peer review. I would
propose that the reviewers should be carefully selected, and
compensated. Authors should not be compensated, except in terms of
recognition. As you point out, good review is essential to keep out
the inevitable glut of junk data or pseudo-science. Since intelligent
review is far more difficult to come by than good content, that is
what ought to be rewarded. Below are my thoughts about how to
attract, compensate and review potential reviewers.
Reviewer compensation formula:
$ = review length x education level x field overlap x timeliness x
publication extent
review length: 1 word = 0.1, 500 words = 5
reviewer education level: high school = 0.1, PhD = 5
field overlap by keyword and journal discretion; known by reviewer in
advance = 0.01 to 10
reviewer timeliness: 10 days = 0.1, 1 day = 5
reviewer publication extent: none = 0.1, 10 or more peer-reviewed
articles = 5
total compensation range: $10 to $400
reviewer indirectly paid by author
reviewer randomly assigned, based on field overlap
review published and attributed to anonymous but consistent reviewer
code
author may publish appreciation and changes, rebuttal, or both
if article is revised, original reviewed version is retained
Note that this formula leaves much at the discretion of the journal
board. I recently paid substantially more for publication to an open
journal that was peer-reviewed. The sole reviewer shared a
superficial, yet approving, response. The journal was more obscure
than Knol. The above formula seems amenable to automation, and
capable of providing so much more for a lot less. Please share your
thoughts.
Cheers,
--
Jeff Radtke
PetrF
> (2) Copy & Paste a Knol to Wordpress, is not always very successful
> because the format of the two systems is not really compatible. So
> After C&P transfer have had to do a Full Edit, to add in paragraphs,
> Bold, Italicised and other formats that disappear in the transfer.
> This means a lot of extra work for a full edit when many of my
> articles are over 10,000 words.
Peter F comments:
To transfer by copy and paste, one should use HTML on both ends, not
Visuals
in the edit window of wordpress you see
HTML Visual
-----------------------------------------------------------
Update
If you paste HTML source from knol when HTML editing is selected,
pragraphs and other formating come out OK.
You just need to give attention to the image tags.
HTML of knol can be obtained by 'copy' in HTML mode on google site,
but it is easier to obtain it by download command on knol site.
Downloaded file is just zip-compressed lists of HTML pages, images,
and one xml file.
It looks like this:
trm10yysobsi-13.html
3trm10yysobsi-14-globalization-pays-me-a-visit.htm.html
3trm10yysobsi-15-relativity-str-and-gtr-in-three-k.html
3trm10yysobsi-16-geometry-and-physics.html
3trm10yysobsi-17-what-s-the-matter-with-energy.htm.html
3trm10yysobsi-18-numerical-math-and-matrices-appen.html
3trm10yysobsi-18y35n-cube4d.gif
3trm10yysobsi-18y35n-cubegilles.jpg
...
...
In my case. One has to check the suffixes,
eg
3trm10yysobsi-14-globalization-pays-me-a-visit.htm.html
3trm10yysobsi-18y35n-pytag.jpeg.jpg
are messed up, need to go back to single html, jpg
and location part of URL must be changed,
but that can be done by 'global replace'.
My knols on page http://iei.info/Phys
were transfered that way.