JURN checked and updated

The JURN Directory has been checked using Linkbot, for dead, broken or moved links. The following journals were removed from the Directory and from the main search index, because either dead or newly paywalled: Intensities, journal of cult media; as-Sikka (Islamic Coins Group); Mapline; Critical Inquiry; Ivy Journal of Ethics; Quaderns de la Mediterrània; eHKCSS, E-Journal on Hong Kong Cultural and Social Studies; Minnesota Review.

Twelve new journals were added to the search index today.

UK will ignore journal title in determining research quality

In the UK, the Universities and Science Minister is reported as saying that the research excellence framework (the national assessment exercise coming in from 2014) will seemingly take no notice of which journal an academic publishes in..

“Individual universities may have a different perspective on the journals you should have published in when it comes to promotion and recruitment, but the REF process makes no such judgements,” he said.

It will apparently also…

“encourage departments to “look beyond publication in a peer-reviewed journal as the be all and end all of academic life”.

Reinventing Research? – report

Reinventing Research? : information practices in the humanities (PDF link), a 2011 report from the UK’s RIN consortium. The report looked at all digital research resources, not just social media. The English Department at the University of Birmingham was one of the case-studies, which presents an interesting three-page snapshot of digital usage (or not — only two staff were bloggers) in a single department.

From the summary of the report…

“We found only limited use — except among philosophers — of blogs and other social media.” […] there is little evidence as yet of their taking full advantage of the possibilities of more advanced tools for text-mining, grid or cloud computing, or the semantic web; and only limited uptake of even simple, freely-available tools for data management and sharing.”

There may also be some overestimation of usage of new media for the dissemination of research findings. This is something that may be increasingly important in the UK in future, as funding becomes partly dependent on the public ‘impact’ of public-funded research. This apparent overestimation doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the RIN report, but it was summed up in a comment from Dr. Michael Jubb, Director of the Research Information Network (RIN)…

“While they [researchers] say they’re using [these] tools for dissemination, in fact they’re not. When you look at the research results they’re not using these kind of tools to aid dissemination, they’re going back to conference papers and journal articles in the traditional way…”

He made the comment in the questions after a recent talk in Harrogate by Bill Russell (presenting huge-sample research which found that Skype and Google Docs were the most used of the new digital resources).

Such lackadaisical behaviour may be dangerous. Change is coming fast. It doesn’t seem that our academics may have a great deal of time and leisure in which to make the change…

“There is a new global race in scientific research and it’s so fast it may well be of world historical importance, a signal of a new, expanding Enlightenment, unconstrained by national boundaries, powered by multilateral institutions and open access publishing through the web, and, above all, by the belief, first put forward by one of the founders of the Royal Society, the Irish scientist Robert Boyle, that knowledge teems with profitable invention. Reading through the 144-page report [ Knowledge, networks and nations (Royal Society, March 2011) ], one can almost sense the authors — some of Britain’s most distinguished scientists — marveling at the findings.”

Footnotes for the Kindle

Mark Mason muses in The Spectator on the fate of the footnote in the Kindle. I recently hand-coded my Kindle ebook H.P. Lovecraft As Psychogeographer, New York City 1924-26 which had thousands of footnotes, using special round-trip links. But Mark rightly points out that readers need some kind of visual flag to indicate when a footnote link contains substantial additional commentary by the author…

“Can’t risk missing those, can you? So you have to look up each and every note, just in case. Or, as I’ve started doing, scanning the notes each time I start a new chapter and trying to remember which ones are proper and which I can ignore. All very cumbersome.”

So should Kindle coders need to abide by a convention whereby links to ‘substantial’ footnotes are at least placed in bold?

The New York Times also frets about the fate of the footnote.

Google Book Search date-range broken?

Interesting. It appears that Google Book Search hasn’t added any new books since the end of December 2009. Or at least, it looks that way if you filter by date. Go to Book Search, select Custom Range… 1/1/2010 to 10/10/2011. Select a common term such as “author” or “genre” or “2011”. No results whatsoever, except from U.S. magazines. The search-by-date function seems to be broken, as searching for “2011”, without a date range set in the sidebar, throws up textbooks published in mid 2010 and late 2010 (e.g.: such as “Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac: Visual QuickStart”).

“Search Needs A Shake Up”

Search Needs A Shake Up” writes Oren Etzion in an op-ad article in the comments column of Nature (4th Aug 2011). The under-the-hood discovery technology has not significantly progressed, even while more-or-less helpful widgets have proliferated on search pages, and search results are transformed on-the-fly to fit almost any mobile device. Most ordinary people still want their search-engine to be like a ‘magic oracle’ — ask a natural language question, and get a one-line correct answer back. Of course, that doesn’t work — which is why Yahoo Answers and its more professional imitators are so popular for those with few search skills. The problem is, the laziness of their users makes unpaid slaves of their helpers.

But until we get that magic one question / one answer solution (Etzion outlines some research on that, but don’t hold your breath) how about just teaching people to search properly, ideally intensively and from primary school level onwards? It’s not rocket science. It’s no more difficult than learning the basics of the Highway Code by heart, or some basic smatterings of Spanish. Doing quality search should be as natural as basic literacy. Once the school-level training is bedded down, then refuse entry to university applicants who cannot pass a rigorous one-hour “search and find” test. The kids and their teachers will soon get the message.