I suspect the answer is zero, but I’d like to be proven wrong. Of course it depends on the definition of “paper”, so let’s say anything indexed by Web of Science or Google Scholar.https://twitter.com/johnkitchin/status/982288371048366081 …
-
In the last two years, they have published 10 articles? They are beautiful, but serve a different role than your typical scientific article.
Sure. I'm just pointing out that plenty of people have taken things into their own hands in regards to publishing format. Either by starting a journal (like http://distill.pub ), or by self-pub (http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com , http://worrydream.com , http://cognitivemedium.com etc)
-
-
Interesting side note: all of that happens outside of academia, and thus outside of bibliometry and other means of pressure towards conformity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm obviously rather biased, but I think http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com is an interesting model. I simply ask people to cite it in the page footer, people do, and Scholar notices. No conventional publisher needed.pic.twitter.com/WaFVu22xvA
-
</brag> (Although, in this case, I genuinely think it's really interesting that this worked. I didn't think it would, and didn't check citations for almost two years after publication. I was shocked.)pic.twitter.com/5uV1tRnGHP
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is fair, and has a place in the world. The scientific literature so far has some flaws, but it also has an archival record that is unrivaled by any of these so far.
-
Archiving is indeed the weak spot of any innovative technology, almost by definition. With Web-based technology, it's also a lost cause from the start in my opinion.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.