With the NIH rules and more and more journals putting all papers online, is it still necessary to maintain a list of all papers and pdf files on our webpages? Because my students/postdocs forget. Or graduate. And I am lazy.
-
-
Replying to @KordingLab
If you're fine with others curating your work for you, be their guest...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @roydanroy
but they already are. If I want to look at your papers I am letting google scholar curate them for me. 90% of the time. And otherwise most papers I read are sent to me by friends.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KordingLab
You can't stop others curating, of course! But if you abdicate responsibility, then don't complain when people only understand your work in terms of 1) its year of publication and 2) its # of citations.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @roydanroy
yeah. But I do not think that the typical ordered list by year helps much in terms of curation. Its more like each of us should write a "this is me, curated" paper every couple years.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KordingLab
Some people have research-theme-organized lists. I agree most lists are slightly better year-oriented list.s
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Frank Wilczek has a very nice annotated bibliography that sets his work in context: http://www.frankwilczek.com/selectedPubs20080610.pdf …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.