« Urgent: Educational Material | Main | A couple of FRBR-related items »

June 22, 2007


I note that Nature have announced Precedings:

Nature Precedings is a place for researchers to share pre-publication research, unpublished manuscripts, presentations, posters, white papers, technical papers, supplementary findings, and other scientific documents. Submissions are screened by our professional curation team for relevance and quality, but are not subjected to peer review. We welcome high-quality contributions from biology, medicine (except clinical trials), chemistry and the earth sciences.

Interesting.  As one might expect, blog reaction is mixed... for example, the positive reception by David Weinberger draws some negative comment from those on the institutional repository side of the fence, who argue that repositories (despite the fact that they are largely empty!) already do all of this.

The announcement of Precedings echoes almost exactly the point I was trying to make in my talk at the JISC Repositories Conference and in subsequent posts - we need to stop thinking institutionally and instead develop or use naturally compelling services, such as Precedings, that position researchers directly in a globally social context.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Nature have got Precedings right, but I think it is an interesting development that deserves close attention as it grows.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Precedings:


Another interesting post Andy. Not sure I entirely agree with you that repositories are "largely empty" or that the focus has to go beyond the University. This is a really interesting service, though, and I've been trying to argue for an increased focus on grey literature type stuff for while. Published peer-reviewed articles is generally pretty easy to discover already, whereas there is real value in a lot of this 'grey' material which is often lost or difficult to find. Where material gets deposited is perhaps less of an issue than the fact that it needs to be IMHO. I think the Depot (depot.edina.ac.uk) has missed a trick here: "The Depot is designed for authors' peer reviewed material. Typically this will be an electronic duplicate of a peer-reviewed journal article".

"Largely empty" eh? Seems only 90% of students will agree with you. (or maybe thats 100% of students, 90% of the time)

"Only 10 percent of college students indicated that their library’s collection fulfilled their information needs after accessing the libraryWeb site from a search engine."

It's hard trying to think in terms of Global groups (grids) rather than National institutions (networks) ain't it? (if one is on the inside)

Do you get the impression we should be trying to classify the grids (the groups' comms networks) and bring in the relevant repositories rather than trying to link the institutionalized repositories and spreading the communications about how it might be done around a thousand blogs, forums, etc?

P.s. I'm sure these guys would appreciate the attention of a good undertaker/librarian. http://www.accessgrid.org/node/738

The comments to this entry are closed.



eFoundations is powered by TypePad