4 ms·

I like the concept of semantic citations, e.g. "cited for methodX", but it's hard to make a general enough system out of this that doesn't disrupt the flow whil

I like the concept of semantic citations, e.g. "cited for methodX", but it's hard to make a general enough system out of this that doesn't disrupt the flow while reading. And in a way, we already do it, except that it's not being done in a consistent fashion that enables datamining of it. Getting publishers to standardize some markup for this would be cool, but I don't think the outcome justifies the added effort for everyone. As for several journals publishing the same thing: there are many problems withh that idea, not the least that Nature/Science doesn't want your paper with an 11 page methods section, they want something much closer to a popsci article. So you have to write several. This is already happening today, when someone gets to publish their supercool finding in Nature they also write one or more longer, detailed (i.e. proper) papers that are sent to more specific journals.

DocSavage 12y ago
"I like the concept of semantic citations, e.g. "cited for methodX", but it's hard to make a general enough system out of this that doesn't disrupt the flow while reading." The different types of citations would be different markup tags and the display to the reader wouldn't be any different than the current reference notation. Regarding the difference in ideal paper format between journals, I think there are already multiple detail levels prepared. Our Nature paper, for example, has a pretty significant supplemental information section. The standard could be three levels of detail: overview, standard, and detailed.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  If the reader can't see the semantic markup, then what's the main purpose, and how does this purpose justify the additional effort required, both to implement this system in a standardized way across journals, and by authors who have to tag their citations with this semantic markup?
  - DocSavage 12y ago
    It's for the algorithms that process papers to produce metrics. Display systems can choose to ignore it and show them all as [1] or might use color, hover message, or whatever to show the distinction in a way that doesn't alter the standard reading experience if that's desired.
    - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
      Then I think there's no way that justifies the additional effort required both from people writing papers and for journals to implement this.

DocSavage 12y ago

"I like the concept of semantic citations, e.g. "cited for methodX", but it's hard to make a general enough system out of this that doesn't disrupt the flow while reading." The different types of citations would be different markup tags and the display to the reader wouldn't be any different than the current reference notation. Regarding the difference in ideal paper format between journals, I think there are already multiple detail levels prepared. Our Nature paper, for example, has a pretty significant supplemental information section. The standard could be three levels of detail: overview, standard, and detailed.

semi-extrinsic 12y ago
If the reader can't see the semantic markup, then what's the main purpose, and how does this purpose justify the additional effort required, both to implement this system in a standardized way across journals, and by authors who have to tag their citations with this semantic markup?
- DocSavage 12y ago
  It's for the algorithms that process papers to produce metrics. Display systems can choose to ignore it and show them all as [1] or might use color, hover message, or whatever to show the distinction in a way that doesn't alter the standard reading experience if that's desired.
  - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
    Then I think there's no way that justifies the additional effort required both from people writing papers and for journals to implement this.