search

ScienceCommons / api

API for interacting with Curate Science model
http://curatescience.org
MIT License
2 stars 4 forks source link

External commentary specifications #106

Open eplebel opened 9 years ago

eplebel commented 9 years ago

Here is a first crack at the specifications for the external commentary section (to be placed at the bottom of the article page, to the right of comments, 50/50 split):

external-commentary

A few notes: -Only the URL field is required, which allows users to quickly post something and then let others fill-in the details later (consistent with the general low-barrier-to-entry spirit of Curate Science). -When users hover an entry in the list, the edit-pencil and flag icons appear, which brings users to the edit screen or flag-for-deletion screen, respectively.

Given that the top 3 blog sites (Wordpress, Blogger, & Tumblr) embed blog post titles and dates in their URL (e.g., http://pigee.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/additional-reflections-on-ceiling-effects-in-recent-replication-research/), we could add some code that automatically parses the title and date and populates those fields accordingly (in the add link window).

cbattista commented 9 years ago

Pretty sure this is what Altmetric already does. Would suggest looking that before considering building out our own stuff - http://www.altmetric.com/.

eplebel commented 9 years ago

Not quite. Altmetric aims to quantify an article's general impact via alternative channels (e.g., Facebook mentions, tweets) whereas the purpose of our external commentary section is to allow users to link to any pre-existing post-publication peer-reviews that specifically involve the independent evaluation and verification of published scientific articles (part of our mission)! These are posted on blogs, personal websites, PubPeer.com, Publons.com. Hence though this feature is definitely related to Altmetric, they serve distinct purposes and provide unique value to our users.

Here's a concrete example: Schnall, Benton, & Harvey (2008) Psychological Science, DOI: 10.1177/0146167208317771 http://www.altmetric.com/details.php?citation_id=101738&src=bookmarklet

As you can see, Altmetric does pick up 9 blog posts about the Schnall et al. (2008) article, however, it misses all of the interesting post-publication peer reviews re-analyzing some of the failed replication studies regarding a potential ceiling effect (https://curatescience.org/schnalletal.html). I just noticed they have a new "Peer Review" section (where they're pulling in stuff from PubPeer), so we could down the road consider trying to automatically pull in stuff via Altmetric, however, stuff will inevitably be missed (mainly because bloggers often don't include actual DOIs of articles in their blog posts), so our feature will always add value in this sense (and importantly further rewards individuals that have engaged in post-publication peer reviews and incentivizes future independent evaluations).