Reviews: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Pedrobeltrao (talk | contribs) |
Pedrobeltrao (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*'''[[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] 11:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)''': Anyone have any suggestions for good reviews? | *'''[[User:Jasonk|Jasonk]] 11:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)''': Anyone have any suggestions for good reviews? | ||
**[[OpenWetWare:Reviews/Synthetic biology]] -- [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1681505 review by Weiss et al in Molecular Systems Biology] which is free to view, but at the moment not approved for derivative works. [http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/ Pedro Beltrao] is checking if we can do something about that. | **[[OpenWetWare:Reviews/Synthetic biology]] -- [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1681505 review by Weiss et al in Molecular Systems Biology] which is free to view, but at the moment not approved for derivative works. [http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/ Pedro Beltrao] is checking if we can do something about that. | ||
* [[User:pedrobeltrao|pedrobeltrao]] 8 March 2007: Sorry, it looks like for copyright issues it will not be possible to use MSB content for this. | |||
==Curators wanted== | ==Curators wanted== | ||
Revision as of 09:43, 8 March 2007
Moved from OpenWetWare:Ideas page:
- Jasonk 09:26, 6 October 2006 (EDT): Along the lines of adopt-a-protocol, it might be great to have adopt a topic area as well. Basically, trying to solve the problem of review articles always being out of date. It seems like the job of writing reviews would be much simpler if it was done on the fly as new papers came out. THat way when a new paper came accross your desk in the area you review you could read it, and then add the relevant details and the reference to the OWW Review page. This is in contrast to coming back to that same paper a year later when you're asked to write a review and having to re-read it, re-analyze it, etc. Seems like a win-win for the both the review-writer (less work) and the readers (who get a more up-to-date source.)
- Jasonk 09:43, 26 February 2007 (EST): I think it might be worth trying this out with the 'curator' approach we discussed for Consensus protocols.
Next steps
- Wikify some existing OA reviews
- Try and get the original author (or someone expert in the topic area) to be the curator for a few of the articles.
- Leave some of the articles curator-free as a trial, still not clear if you want/need a curator.
Wikify existing Reviews
- Jasonk 11:23, 6 March 2007 (EST): Anyone have any suggestions for good reviews?
- OpenWetWare:Reviews/Synthetic biology -- review by Weiss et al in Molecular Systems Biology which is free to view, but at the moment not approved for derivative works. Pedro Beltrao is checking if we can do something about that.
- pedrobeltrao 8 March 2007: Sorry, it looks like for copyright issues it will not be possible to use MSB content for this.
Curators wanted
- Jasonk 11:37, 6 March 2007 (EST): Anyone interested in being a curator for a review in their field of expertise? I can't promise you scientific rewards yet, but I suspect this will become an accepted form of merit down the line ;)
Resources
- Is there an easy way to search only OA journals?
- Looks like best bet would be to search known OA journals such as BMC or PLoS.
- not sure if this is just OA, but just for UK I think: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/ --Johncumbers 19:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, I don't think PMC is OA, rather it is mainly "free", which is worse -- "All the articles in PMC are free (sometimes on a delayed basis). Some journals go beyond free, to Open Access." (from the PMC homepage).
