Image by mndoci via FlickrCommenting on journal articles and in line annotation does not seem to be working at this time, at least not as much as we would like it to. There are any number of reasons for that, but I think one is always going to be the fact that most scientific papers only have a very small audience engaged at a particular time (there are exceptions, but they are just that). It’s probably why publishing platforms should probably try to focus on trackbacks, aggregating commentary and making the original paper the hub from which someone could find additional information. What do I mean by that? Let’s say we have a paper on PTP1B (e.g. a new structure). From the paper I would like to be able to find
1. Referenced papers (that’s the part people do focus on)
2. Referenced crystal structures and ligands
3. Related data
4. Related publications
5. Trackbacks to all posts referencing the paper
6. Any news articles referencing that paper
7. Genbank, etc links to relevant sequences
8. Other information resources
Essentially from that paper we should be able to find everything one needs to know to leverage the science. I think even with web-centric publications, we are not quite leveraging the web as an information platform. There is the human-readable information, the stuff listed above, and then we can have all the machine-friendly info that have been talked about on these pages often. When I say web native, maybe we should be pushing the boundaries, trying things out that might be a little out there and giving them time to fail, or succeed.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=ad71f8bb-6731-48cf-a736-2bcbc22870c2)
4 Comments
The obvious problem, at least in the life sciences, is that the vast majority of papers are downloaded as pdf's and read off-line. This means a reader gets a one-time static view of a paper, and most likely never goes back to the online version of the article. This inhibits comments, as the extra steps and effort create a barrier to entry. With no tangible benefits offered for leaving comments, the extra efforts required are too steep to bother. This also prevents the reader from seeing any newer information added to a paper since it was downloaded in pdf form.
Just one reason I so dislike PDF as a web publishing format. It should be an option, but most journals treat web publishing as a way of disseminating PDF's. I wonder what impact services like Mendeley might have in potentially helping address this issue
I don't think that publishers (I work for one) are particularly biased toward pdf's–it's more that over time they've become the currency of the field. Publishers are supplying them as a way of bowing to the desires of their readers. I'm sure publishers would rather drive you to their own websites each time you want to see a paper, gaining pageviews and potential advertising revenue. It would also eliminate readers downloading the pdf and sending copies to non-subscribers, further enforcing the publisher's control of distribution. But most readers only want to go to the trouble of finding an article one time, and then keeping a permanent copy for themselves. This probably stems from the old days of xeroxing an article from a journal and putting it in a file cabinet. I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of papers are downloaded as pdf's, printed out, and read on paper rather than on a screen.
I'm not really sure if social bookmarking sites are going to change this–so far, they don't seem to be catching on, and the activation energy required (endless, tedious tagging) seems to outweigh the benefits. Sites like Mendeley, that allow for uploading and redistribution of copyrighted materials, are probably going to face some stiff legal challenges if they ever catch on anyway, so I'd be careful about putting all of my eggs in one basket.
I don't think that publishers (I work for one) are particularly biased toward pdf's–it's more that over time they've become the currency of the field. Publishers are supplying them as a way of bowing to the desires of their readers. I'm sure publishers would rather drive you to their own websites each time you want to see a paper, gaining pageviews and potential advertising revenue. It would also eliminate readers downloading the pdf and sending copies to non-subscribers, further enforcing the publisher's control of distribution. But most readers only want to go to the trouble of finding an article one time, and then keeping a permanent copy for themselves. This probably stems from the old days of xeroxing an article from a journal and putting it in a file cabinet. I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of papers are downloaded as pdf's, printed out, and read on paper rather than on a screen.
I'm not really sure if social bookmarking sites are going to change this–so far, they don't seem to be catching on, and the activation energy required (endless, tedious tagging) seems to outweigh the benefits. Sites like Mendeley, that allow for uploading and redistribution of copyrighted materials, are probably going to face some stiff legal challenges if they ever catch on anyway, so I'd be careful about putting all of my eggs in one basket.