Notes for guidance on preparation of research reports, research dissertations and scientific papers

The notes for guidance on preparation of research, research dissertations and scientific papers are meant to assist researchers on how to achieve a successful presentation, writing a technical report or research paper. This comprises some simple rules that have helped many inexperienced writers to get started, and have also helped more experienced writers to get out of a hopeless tangle of observations and inferences. (PDF contains 65 pages)

Selecting Scientific Papers for Publication via Citation Auctions

The scientific community has been suffering from peer review for decades. This process (also called refereeing) subjects an author's scientific work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more experts in the field. Publishers use it to select and screen manuscript submissions, and funding agencies use it to award research funds. The goal is to get authors to meet their discipline's standards and thus achieve scientific objectivity. Publications and awards that haven't undergone peer review are often regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. However, peer review, although universally used, has many drawbacks. We propose replacing peer review with an auction-based approach: the better the submitted paper, the more scientific currency the author likely bid to have it published. If the bid correctly reflects the paper's quality, the author is rewarded in this new scientific currency; otherwise, the author loses this currency. We argue that citations are an appropriate currency for all scientists. We believe that citation auctions encourage scientists to better control their submissions' quality. It also inspire them to prepare more exciting talks for accepted papers and to invite discussion of their results at congresses and conferences and among their colleagues. In the long run, citation auctions could have the power to greatly improve scientific research

Citation auctions as a method to improve selection of scientific papers

This paper describes the basis of citation auctions as a new approach to selecting scientific papers for publication. Our main idea is to use an auction for selecting papers for publication through - differently from the state of the art - bids that consist of the number of citations that a scientist expects to receive if the paper is published. Hence, a citation auction is the selection process itself, and no reviewers are involved. The benefits of the proposed approach are two-fold. First, the cost of refereeing will be either totally eliminated or significantly reduced, because the process of citation auction does not need prior understanding of the paper's content to judge the quality of its contribution. Additionally, the method will not prejudge the content of the paper, so it will increase the openness of publications to new ideas. Second, scientists will be much more committed to the quality of their papers, paying close attention to distributing and explaining their papers in detail to maximize the number of citations that the paper receives. Sample analyses of the number of citations collected in papers published in years 1999-2004 for one journal, and in years 2003-2005 for a series of conferences (in a totally different discipline), via Google scholar, are provided. Finally, a simple simulation of an auction is given to outline the behaviour of the citation auction approach

Using complex networks concepts to assess approaches for citations in scientific papers

The number of citations received by authors in scientific journals has become a major parameter to assess individual researchers and the journals themselves through the impact factor. A fair assessment therefore requires that the criteria for selecting references in a given manuscript should be unbiased with regard to the authors or journals cited. In this paper, we assess approaches for citations considering two recommendations for authors to follow while preparing a manuscript: (i) consider similarity of contents with the topics investigated, lest related work should be reproduced or ignored; (ii) perform a systematic search over the network of citations including seminal or very related papers. We use formalisms of complex networks for two datasets of papers from the arXiv and the Web of Science repositories to show that neither of these two criteria is fulfilled in practice. By representing the texts as complex networks we estimated a similarity index between pieces of texts and found that the list of references did not contain the most similar papers in the dataset. This was quantified by calculating a consistency index, whose maximum value is one if the references in a given paper are the most similar in the dataset. For the areas of "complex networks" and "graphenes", the consistency index was only 0.11-0.23 and 0.10-0.25, respectively. To simulate a systematic search in the citation network, we employed a traditional random walk search (i.e. diffusion) and a random walk whose probabilities of transition are proportional to the number of the ingoing edges of the neighbours. The frequency of visits to the nodes (papers) in the network had a very small correlation with either the actual list of references in the papers or with the number of downloads from the arXiv repository. Therefore, apparently the authors and users of the repository did not follow the criterion related to a systematic search over the network of citations. Based on these results, we propose an approach that we believe is fairer for evaluating and complementing citations of a given author, effectively leading to a virtual scientometry.

Catalogue of scientific papers, 1800-1863 [to 1884-1900]. Compiled by the Royal Society of London.

v. 12

Catalogue of scientific papers, 1800-1863 [to 1884-1900]. Compiled by the Royal Society of London.

v. 4

Catalogue of scientific papers, 1800-1863 [to 1884-1900]. Compiled by the Royal Society of London.

v. 14

Scientific papers of Asa Gray,

v. 1. Reviews of works on botany and related subjects, 1834-1887.--v. 2. Essays; biographical sketches, 1841-1886.

Scientific papers of the Bureau of Standards.

Description based on: no. 216 (Aug. 2, 1913).

Scientific papers.

"An unabridged and unaltered republication of the first edition ... originally published ... in 1906."

The collected scientific papers of the late William Alexander Forbes,

At head of title: In memoriam.

Catalogue of scientific papers (1800-1900)

Compiled under the supervision of Henry White, Herbert McLeod, H. Forster Morley, and others. List of society publications, journals and other periodicals catalogued, with abbreviations used: v. 1, p. [xiii]-lxxviii; v. 7, p. [v]-xxxi; v. 9, p. [vii]-xxxii; v. 12, p. [vii]-xxxii; v. 13, p. [ix]-xcviii.

Scientific papers /

Description based on: Vol. 2, pt. 2, published in 1958.