[open-science] Fame, glory and neglect in meta-analyses
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Aug 16 09:23:41 UTC 2011
> It seems like this paper is perhaps unfairly putting the burden of
> > responsibility on the authors of meta-analyses, rather than on
> > publishers who I imagine could easily (surely?) let ISI count ESM/SI
> > citations. Why does this issue even exist in 2011 (the Digitial
> > Age)!?!?
> I am afraid it's not technically easy. Here's the first suppdata I found at
It's simply called "PDF". Where are the citations? They are actually
footnotes in this case. Sometimes they are in bitmaps
In the main text the citations are "standardized" by the publishers (i.e.
every publisher does it consistently within the publisher but completely
different from each other) and probably the robots can get a reasonable
amount without too many garbles. In the suppdata it's whatever anyone puts
And, remember that with a few execeptions, publishers regard suppdata as a
cost without benefits.
> One would think so - are there any publishers on the list who wouldn't
> mind giving their perspective or explaining the challenges?
Yes, please - let's hear some. We shall treat you respectfully.
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science