February 17, 2012
What follows is an extended comment on the proposal of pre-print peer review by Sabine Hossenfelder.
She suggests, inter alia, that the authors pay a submission fee for each paper and the referees get awards for their reports. But is the fees-related part of the proposal necessary at all? Perhaps the universities could donate some funds (as they already do for the arXiv) to get the thing going, and major professional societies (APS, AMS, etc.) could chime in too (and the authors can donate on a purely voluntary basis). To replace the awards for refereeing and the author fees one could use some kind of “points” (pretty much like the reputation points on the stackexchange sites): submission of the first paper is free, and the next ones are “paid” by the points obtained from refereeing. There could be some points gained for any report and extra points if the author(s) like the report (and express this by marking it as “favorite”).
UPDATE: another interesting and very detailed proposal on an alternative peer review model is Open Peer Review by a Selected-Papers Network by Chris Lee.
March 23, 2009
I have just found some great advice on how to boost your citation count, i.e., get more citations for your publications (which may, as you well know, increase your visibility in the science world and your chances of getting tenure) . An interesting discussion of the so-called Matthew effect in science (to start, see the classical papers by Robert K. Merton here, here, and here) and its influence on the citation patterns can be found here.
Update: I also found some interesting tips on how to get your papers cited here and here.
As for the general advice on writing research papers, see excellent writing tips from the blog of Terence Tao.
Update 2: making your work available online (e.g. at the arXiv; see this post of Terence Tao for further details) can significantly increase its chances to be cited (but be careful with the copyright issues when making available the work you have already published).
Update 3: Also, quite obviously, publishing your paper in a high-impact journal may increase its chances of getting cited. But submitting your papers to the journals perceived as prestigious has plenty of caveats — see e.g. this post by Terence Tao and this post by Massimo.
Update 4: see this post about the citation trading at ectropy.info
March 16, 2009
Ten Simple Rules for
The above articles are also available as a single collection (which however does not seem to include the correction mentioned above).
March 10, 2009
Here are several helpful links I found:
Update: I just found a nice post on the subject by Daniel Lemire.
Update 2: a post by the Professor-Like Substance on the broader impact part of grant applications, and the post (actually, a series of posts) by PhysioProf about the NIH R01 grants.
Update 3: see this post at the Survival Blog for Scientists, this post at the Blue Lab Coats and this post at the Expbook.