Back to [Archive] Other discussions

1
Publications that are never read and Open Access
Admin
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killing-pigs-weed-maps-mostly-unread-world-academic-papers-76733/

At one of the first academic conferences I ever attended, I heard an economist joke that dissertations are only read by three people: the author, their advisor, and the committee chair. It’s funny in the way that academic jokes are funny: not actually funny but it gets listeners to nod along with the central truth. This specific central truth must resonate with established academics, since I heard versions of this same joke at nearly every conference I attended thereafter.

Like many jokes, this particular one turns out to be half true. A burgeoning field of academic study called citation analysis (it’s exactly what it sounds like) has found that this joke holds true for not just dissertations, but many academic papers. A study at Indiana University found that “as many as 50% of papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, referees and journal editors.” That same study concluded that “some 90% of papers that have been published in academic journals are never cited.” That is, nine out of 10 academic papers—which both often take years to research, compile, submit, and get published, and are a major component by which a scholar’s output is measured—contribute little to the academic conversation.


This is one of the problems we hope to help solve with Open Access journals.
Admin
"two of the largest funders of scientific research today, Wellcome Trust in the UK and the National Institute for Health (NIH) in the US, are starting to punish grant recipients who don't follow through on open access obligations."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140415/06362526916/do-natures-publishers-even-read-their-own-articles-about-open-access.shtml
http://ils.indiana.edu/media/paper/PWJan07meho.pdf

Well... it never says on which field most of the academic papers are not read. I doubt that people don't read IQ research. You should already know this. Even academicians hate IQ. And race-IQ research is really something people don't want to see, or hear about. But when you don't like something, the probability you'll put much effort in reading the article carefully and scrutinize every little thing, is high. When a theory confirms your pre-conception you'll not do this effort to read the article carefully because your first reaction is "yes, just as I thought". So you may not be a good reader, in most cases. In other words, the best readers and commenters are likely to be those who don't like your research. So, in the field of IQ, where opponents of IQ and hereditarian hypothesis are just of countless number, you may expect them to read every little thing that come into light of the public.

Just think about The Bell Curve...

Every research on IQ and race is a provocation. Provoke people, and you are assured at 99.999999999% that they will read what you do.
1