<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://languagehat.com/the-phantom-reference/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.02763"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17448/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.10033"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-our-citation-practices-make-no-sense.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09966"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00269"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://status451.com/2017/10/27/radical-book-club-the-centralized-left/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/167012-turings-1936-paper-and-the-first-dutch-computers/fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167475"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02808"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00494"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/05/a-new-metric-the-rapid-science-collaboration-score/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/05/my-professor-demand-to-be-listed-author-on-research-paper"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5027"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewers-update/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3379"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4676"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6299"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.wired.com/2014/07/the-network-structure-of-jewish-texts"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=spru-response-final.pdf&amp;site=25"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7653"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8224"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4904"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1785"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8220"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0463"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hobbb.tumblr.com/post/46415421898/metropolitan-metrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://gigaom.com/2012/08/20/plagiarism-defamation-and-the-power-of-hyperlinks/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4361"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1004"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5444"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2010/04/what-does-it-meant-to-be-published.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3529v1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://vonahn.blogspot.com/2009/02/academic-publications-20.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pmla.org/altsource.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blog.oddhead.com/2008/11/14/the-predict-flu-using-search-study-you-didnt-hear-about/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/mattjb"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.zotero.org/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/07/how_should_unpr.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://precedings.nature.com/documents/361/version/1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=382"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/06/citation-practices/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/05/does-open-access-correlate-with-quality.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.eigenfactor.org/index.php"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/105-4946124-2855649?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=%22Bill+Tozier%22"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://languagehat.com/the-phantom-reference/">
    <title>languagehat.com : The Phantom Reference.</title>
    <dc:date>2021-01-29T14:47:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://languagehat.com/the-phantom-reference/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[To cut a long story short, the article appeared to be completely made up and did not in fact exist. It was a “phantom reference” that had been created merely to illustrate Elsevier’s desired reference format. Even so, Pieter found that in the Web of Science there were nearly 400 articles citing this non-existing reference and many more citing articles appeared in the more comprehensive Google Scholar. The fact that academics don’t always take the necessary care in their referencing behaviour is something that is not unfamiliar to me. Early on in my career, I even wrote an article about this: Are referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? But even so, how could authors cite a publication that didn’t in fact exist?

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture what-gets-measured-gets-fudged rather-interesting citation folklore to-write-about consider:that-one-article-you-know-which-one-I-mean</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c9e2c930dbcb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what-gets-measured-gets-fudged"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:folklore"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:that-one-article-you-know-which-one-I-mean"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.02763">
    <title>[2003.02763] A Quantitative History of A.I. Research in the United States and China</title>
    <dc:date>2020-10-03T12:11:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.02763</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Motivated by recent interest in the status and consequences of competition between the U.S. and China in A.I. research, we analyze 60 years of abstract data scraped from Scopus to explore and quantify trends in publications on A.I. topics from institutions affiliated with each country. We find the total volume of publications produced in both countries grows with a remarkable regularity over tens of years. While China initially experienced faster growth in publication volume than the U.S., growth slowed in China when it reached parity with the U.S. and the growth rates of both countries are now similar. We also see both countries undergo a seismic shift in topic choice around 1990, and connect this to an explosion of interest in neural network methods. Finally, we see evidence that between 2000 and 2010, China's topic choice tended to lag that of the U.S. but that in recent decades the topic portfolios have come into closer alignment.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>digital-humanities science-studies rather-interesting citation library-science social-networks academic-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:492bb5e5ca6e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science-studies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:library-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17448/">
    <title>What Can Philosophers Really Learn from Science Journals? - PhilSci-Archive</title>
    <dc:date>2020-08-05T12:22:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17448/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Philosophers of science regularly use scientific publications in their research. To make their analyses of the literature more thorough, some have begun to use computational methods from the digital humanities (DH). Yet this creates a tension: it’s become a truism in science studies that the contents of scientific publications do not accurately reflect the complex realities of scientific investigation. In this paper, we outline existing views on how scientific publications fit into the broader picture of science as a system of practices, and find that none of these views exclude articles as valuable sources for philosophical inquiry. Far from ignoring the gap between texts and practice, proper use of DH tools requires, and can even contribute to, our understanding of that gap and its implications.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture digital-humanities network-theory citation rather-interesting to-read</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d201382805dd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-read"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.10033">
    <title>[2002.10033] Citations Systematically Misrepresent the Quality and Impact of Research Articles: Survey and Experimental Evidence from Thousands of Citers</title>
    <dc:date>2020-05-03T11:27:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.10033</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Citations are ubiquitous in evaluating research, but how exactly they relate to what they are thought to measure (quality and intellectual impact) is unclear. We investigate the relationships between citations, quality, and impact using a survey with an embedded experiment in which 12,670 authors in 15 academic fields describe about 25K specific referencing decisions. Results suggest that citation counts, when equated with quality and impact, are biased in opposite directions. First, experimentally exposing papers' actual citation counts during the survey causes respondents to perceive all but the top 10% cited papers as of lower quality. Because perceptions of quality are a key factor in citing decisions, citation counts are likely to endogenously cause more citing of top papers and equating them with quality overestimates the actual quality of those papers. Conversely, 54% of references had either zero or minor influence on authors who cite them, but references to highly cited papers were about 200% more likely to denote substantial impact. Equating citations with impact thus underestimates the impact of highly cited papers. Real citation practices thus reveal that citations are biased measures of quality and impact.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture citation publishing-myths habits-of-scientism reputation rather-interesting looking-to-see to-write-about consider:countermeasures</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e253b29a3cd3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing-myths"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:habits-of-scientism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reputation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-to-see"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:countermeasures"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-our-citation-practices-make-no-sense.html">
    <title>Why our citation practices make no sense | Musings about librarianship</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-03T12:12:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-our-citation-practices-make-no-sense.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Why are there thousands of citation styles?

Nobody is against consistency in referencing of course, but do we really need thousands (8.5k styles according to CSL Style repository) of citation styles existing? 

All this creates confusion and the costs.

Think of the researchers who have to format their references everytime their paper is rejected and they need to resubmit to another journal with it's own unique style. Given the low acceptance rates for top journals and the desire of researchers to try submitting to the top journals first , this means a typical journal article can be resubmitted to more than 1 journal before it is accepted. Even if researchers don't do it properly, copywriters are employed who work to clean up references in accepted manuscripts.

The fact there are thousands of styles have other less obvious costs. In the past decade there has been dozens of projects that try to parse text references and process them into structured data e.g Parscite which then can be used for various functions from finding an appropriate copy in link resolvers, to importing into reference managers.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation academic-culture standards looking-under-the-lamp-post publishing what-a-citation-is-for archiving stakeholders-ball</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:39183fe4e6aa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:standards"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-under-the-lamp-post"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:what-a-citation-is-for"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:archiving"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:stakeholders-ball"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09966">
    <title>[1805.09966] Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-14T14:30:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09966</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The spread of ideas in the scientific community is often viewed as a competition, in which good ideas spread further because of greater intrinsic fitness. As a result, it is commonly believed that publication venue and citation counts correlate with importance and impact. However, relatively little is known about how structural factors influence the spread of ideas, and specifically how where an idea originates can influence how it spreads. Here, we investigate the role of faculty hiring networks, which embody the set of researcher transitions from doctoral to faculty institutions, in shaping the spread of ideas in computer science, and the importance of where in the network an idea originates. We consider comprehensive data on the hiring events of 5,032 faculty at all 205 Ph.D.-granting departments of computer science in the U.S. and Canada, and on the timing and titles of 200,476 associated publications. Analyzing three popular research topics, we show empirically that faculty hiring plays a significant role in driving the spread of ideas across the community. We then use epidemic models to simulate the generic spread of research ideas and quantify the consequences of where an idea originates on its longterm diffusion across the network. We find that research from prestigious institutions spreads more quickly and completely than work of similar quality originating from less prestigious institutions. Our analyses establish the theoretical trade-offs between university prestige and the quality of ideas necessary for efficient circulation. These results suggest a lower bound for epistemic inequality, identify a mechanism for the persistent epistemic advantage observed for elite institutions, and highlight limitations for meritocratic ideals.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>social-networks citation epidemiology-of-ideas credentialing who-reads-who to-write-about rather-interesting academic-culture meritocracy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:699e7febbe59/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:epidemiology-of-ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:credentialing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:who-reads-who"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:meritocracy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00269">
    <title>[1710.00269] Bounded Rationality in Scholarly Knowledge Discovery</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-20T13:19:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00269</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In an information-rich world, people's time and attention must be divided among rapidly changing information sources and the diverse tasks demanded of them. How people decide which of the many sources, such as scientific articles or patents, to read and use in their own work affects dissemination of scholarly knowledge and adoption of innovation. We analyze the choices people make about what information to propagate on the citation networks of Physical Review journals, US patents and legal opinions. We observe regularities in behavior consistent with human bounded rationality: rather than evaluate all available choices, people rely on simply cognitive heuristics to decide what information to attend to. We demonstrate that these heuristics bias choices, so that people preferentially propagate information that is easier to discover, often because it is newer or more popular. However, we do not find evidence that popular sources help to amplify the spread of information beyond making it more salient. Our paper provides novel evidence of the critical role that bounded rationality plays in the decisions to allocate attention in social communication.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation academic-culture sociology epidemiology-of-ideas social-networks system-of-professions to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b93d8c608792/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:epidemiology-of-ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://status451.com/2017/10/27/radical-book-club-the-centralized-left/">
    <title>radical book club: the Centralized Left | Status 451</title>
    <dc:date>2017-11-12T12:44:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://status451.com/2017/10/27/radical-book-club-the-centralized-left/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Alinsky is kind of a curious cat. The Lefties who are most influenced by his methods often don’t talk about him much, and in many cases Lefties who do talk about him are critical. Here’s the dynamic you need to appreciate to understand this: Lefties, by and large, do not read older Lefty books the way Righties read older Righty books. A lot of Lefty training is done orally, and it’s not always hugely sourced. One Lefty friend of mine, for example, was shocked to realize years later that his college newspaper had literally been doing Maoist criticism/self-criticism sessions. They’d left any mention of Mao himself behind, of course, but they’d kept the technique.

That’s kind of what happened to Saul Alinsky. His methods are everywhere, but if you read organizing books you’ll be surprised how rarely he’s mentioned. Mainstream Lefties are actually baffled by how popular Righties think Alinsky is.]]></description>
<dc:subject>history-of-ideas politics organization organizational-behavior rather-interesting citation cultural-norms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:a7b321be91b7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-ideas"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:organization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:organizational-behavior"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/167012-turings-1936-paper-and-the-first-dutch-computers/fulltext">
    <title>Turing's 1936 Paper and the First Dutch Computers | blog@CACM | Communications of the ACM</title>
    <dc:date>2017-09-19T11:02:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/167012-turings-1936-paper-and-the-first-dutch-computers/fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The following question has polarized the computer-science community: Did Alan Turing's 1936 paper 'On Computable Numbers' influence the early history of computer building? "Yes, certainly" and "no, definitely not" are often-heard answers. A third, more nuanced, response acknowledges a diversity of local computing habits in the 1940s-1950s.

Some historical actors became acquainted with Turing's 1936 paper early on, while others did not. Some researchers depended directly or indirectly on its contents, while others accomplished great feats even without knowing who Turing was. The successful Dutch computer builder Willem van der Poel is one of those few men who not only read about, but also applied, Turing's 1936 universal-machine concept in the history of early post-war computers. Van der Poel thought and programmed very much like Turing himself and was industrially more successful than Turing. Van der Poel's story is told here for the first time.]]></description>
<dc:subject>history history-of-science Turing academic-culture system-of-professions citation rather-interesting to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6a63c1a530ba/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Turing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167475">
    <title>Scholarly Context Adrift: Three out of Four URI References Lead to Changed Content</title>
    <dc:date>2017-07-26T13:57:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167475</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Increasingly, scholarly articles contain URI references to “web at large” resources including project web sites, scholarly wikis, ontologies, online debates, presentations, blogs, and videos. Authors reference such resources to provide essential context for the research they report on. A reader who visits a web at large resource by following a URI reference in an article, some time after its publication, is led to believe that the resource’s content is representative of what the author originally referenced. However, due to the dynamic nature of the web, that may very well not be the case. We reuse a dataset from a previous study in which several authors of this paper were involved, and investigate to what extent the textual content of web at large resources referenced in a vast collection of Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM) articles published between 1997 and 2012 has remained stable since the publication of the referencing article. We do so in a two-step approach that relies on various well-established similarity measures to compare textual content. In a first step, we use 19 web archives to find snapshots of referenced web at large resources that have textual content that is representative of the state of the resource around the time of publication of the referencing paper. We find that representative snapshots exist for about 30% of all URI references. In a second step, we compare the textual content of representative snapshots with that of their live web counterparts. We find that for over 75% of references the content has drifted away from what it was when referenced. These results raise significant concerns regarding the long term integrity of the web-based scholarly record and call for the deployment of techniques to combat these problems.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture citation authority ephemerality philosophy-of-science to-write-about the-Great-Discontinuity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:cd5f7d62e555/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:authority"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ephemerality"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-Great-Discontinuity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html">
    <title>The 20% Statistician: Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles</title>
    <dc:date>2017-05-07T14:29:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://daniellakens.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia academic-culture publishing philosophy-of-science citation best-practices to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f4bc4c6f0b5a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:best-practices"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02808">
    <title>[1702.02808] Memetic search for overlapping topics based on a local evaluation of link communities</title>
    <dc:date>2017-02-16T11:44:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02808</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In spite of recent advances in field delineation methods, bibliometricians still don't know the extent to which their topic detection algorithms reconstruct `ground truths', i.e. thematic structures in the scientific literature. In this paper, we demonstrate a new approach to the delineation of thematic structures that attempts to match the algorithm to theoretically derived and empirically observed properties all thematic structures have in common. We cluster citation links rather than publication nodes, use predominantly local information and search for communities of links starting from seed subgraphs in order to allow for pervasive overlaps of topics. We evaluate sets of links with a new cost function and assume that local minima in the cost landscape correspond to link communities. Because this cost landscape has many local minima we define a valid community as the community with the lowest minimum within a certain range. Since finding all valid communities is impossible for large networks, we designed a memetic algorithm that combines probabilistic evolutionary strategies with deterministic local searches. We apply our approach to a network of about 15,000 Astronomy & Astrophysics papers published 2010 and their cited sources, and to a network of about 100,000 Astronomy & Astrophysics papers (published 2003--2010) which are linked through direct citations.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>bibliometrics citation social-networks feature-extraction clustering rather-interesting academic-culture system-of-professions</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:983bef5ba6a9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bibliometrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:feature-extraction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:clustering"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00494">
    <title>[1609.00494] Publication bias and the canonization of false facts</title>
    <dc:date>2016-09-06T20:09:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00494</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In the process of scientific inquiry, certain claims accumulate enough support to be established as facts. Unfortunately, not every claim accorded the status of fact turns out to be true. In this paper, we model the dynamic process by which claims are canonized as fact through repeated experimental confirmation. The community's confidence in a claim constitutes a Markov process: each successive published result shifts the degree of belief, until sufficient evidence accumulates to accept the claim as fact or to reject it as false. In our model, publication bias --- in which positive results are published preferentially over negative ones --- influences the distribution of published results. We find that when readers do not know the degree of publication bias and thus cannot condition on it, false claims often can be canonized as facts. Unless a sufficient fraction of negative results are published, the scientific process will do a poor job at discriminating false from true claims. This problem is exacerbated when scientists engage in p-hacking, data dredging, and other behaviors that increase the rate at which false positives are published. If negative results become easier to publish as a claim approaches acceptance as a fact, however, true and false claims can be more readily distinguished. To the degree that the model accurately represents current scholarly practice, there will be serious concern about the validity of purported facts in some areas of scientific research.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture epidemiology memes-shmemes citation social-norms social-networks system-of-professions simulation to-write-about</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:26e0aac7fe36/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:epidemiology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:memes-shmemes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:simulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/05/a-new-metric-the-rapid-science-collaboration-score/">
    <title>A new metric: The Rapid Science Collaboration Score - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch</title>
    <dc:date>2016-02-09T18:00:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/05/a-new-metric-the-rapid-science-collaboration-score/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Amy Brand, Liz Allen and others (sorry, middle authors!) have taken the lead on crucial first steps to address this corollary. Their paper “Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit,” published last year in Learned Publishing, describes Project CRediT, which defines contributor roles in published research output in the sciences. The purpose of this taxonomy is to “provide transparency in contributions to scholarly published work, to enable improved systems of attribution, credit, and accountability.”

]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation academic-culture metrics social-engineering</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:e8a953b22c5a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:metrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-engineering"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/05/my-professor-demand-to-be-listed-author-on-research-paper">
    <title>‘My professor demands to be listed as an author on many of my papers’ | Higher Education Network | The Guardian</title>
    <dc:date>2015-06-07T12:05:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/05/my-professor-demand-to-be-listed-author-on-research-paper</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This will require the creation of more junior faculty positions, which will in turn balance the top-heavy academic hierarchy. The other option is for professors to have the guts to allow their group members to publish without them when they haven’t contributed enough to merit authorship. After all, integrity should count for so much more than numbers of papers published.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>oh-yeah-that'll-happen academic-culture citation happened-to-me-in-year-one publishing-industrial-complex</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:89f9c29485e9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:oh-yeah-that'll-happen"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:happened-to-me-in-year-one"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing-industrial-complex"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5027">
    <title>[1401.5027] Tie Strength Distribution in Scientific Collaboration Networks</title>
    <dc:date>2015-01-01T21:18:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5027</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Science is increasingly dominated by teams. Understanding patterns of scientific collaboration and their impacts on the productivity and evolution of disciplines is crucial to understand scientific processes. Electronic bibliography offers a unique opportunity to map and investigate the nature of scientific collaboration. Recent work have demonstrated a counter-intuitive organizational pattern of scientific collaboration networks: densely interconnected local clusters consist of weak ties, whereas strong ties play the role of connecting different clusters. This pattern contrasts itself from many other types of networks where strong ties form communities while weak ties connect different communities. Although there are many models for collaboration networks, no model reproduces this pattern. In this paper, we present an evolution model of collaboration networks, which reproduces many properties of real-world collaboration networks, including the organization of tie strengths, skewed degree and weight distribution, high clustering and assortative mixing.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>social-networks self-organization citation sociology models nudge-targets</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:287ffdd0fff4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:self-organization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nudge-targets"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewers-update/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing">
    <title>Registered Reports: A step change in scientific publishing | Elsevier</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-19T12:09:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewers-update/registered-reports-a-step-change-in-scientific-publishing</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The unique selling point of Registered Reports is that they eliminate the need for scientists to strive for "publishable results". Registered Reports enshrine the ethos that science earns its stripes from the value of the research question and the rigor of the method, and never from whether the data sing a good tune. This idea is as old as the scientific method itself; in fact, it almost feels wrong to call Registered Reports an innovation in publishing when it is closer to being a restoration– a reinvention of publishing and the peer-review process as it was meant to be.

Some scientists have expressed fears that Registered Reports could restrict creativity by requiring authors to adhere to a fixed research methodology. In fact – and this is important to emphasize – the Registered Reports initiative places no restrictions whatsoever on creativity, flexibility or the reporting of serendipitous findings. While it is true that the pre-specified methods in a Registered Report must be followed, there are no bounds on the reporting of additional unregistered analyses. The only requirement is that such additional material is labelled transparently so that readers know which analyses were pre-registered and which were exploratory.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>science academic-culture publishing citation camel's-nose blogging openness</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ebf8a9e8f939/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:camel's-nose"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:blogging"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3379">
    <title>[1409.3379] A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-14T12:20:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3379</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The predictive power of the h-index has been shown to depend for a long time on citations to rather old publications. This has raised doubts about its usefulness for predicting future scientific achievements. Here I investigate a variant which considers only the recent publications and is therefore more useful in academic hiring processes and for the allocation of research resources. It is simply defined in analogy to the usual h-index, but taking into account only the publications from recent years, and it can easily be determined from the ISI Web of Knowledge.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation summary-statistics h-index social-networks models-and-modes academic-culture prediction rather-interesting counterexamples</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6dacbd75bc6a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:summary-statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:h-index"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:prediction"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:counterexamples"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4676">
    <title>[1401.4676] Universal hierarchical behavior of citation networks</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-08T13:12:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4676</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Many of the essential features of the evolution of scientific research are imprinted in the structure of citation networks. Connections in these networks imply information about the transfer of knowledge among papers, or in other words, edges describe the impact of papers on other publications. This inherent meaning of the edges infers that citation networks can exhibit hierarchical features, that is typical of networks based on decision-making. In this paper, we investigate the hierarchical structure of citation networks consisting of papers in the same field. We find that the majority of the networks follow a universal trend towards a highly hierarchical state, and i) the various fields display differences only concerning their phase in life (distance from the "birth" of a field) or ii) the characteristic time according to which they are approaching the stationary state. We also show by a simple argument that the alterations in the behavior are related to and can be understood by the degree of specialization corresponding to the fields. Our results suggest that during the accumulation of knowledge in a given field, some papers are gradually becoming relatively more influential than most of the other papers.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation social-networks universal you-don't-say complexology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3551ba37166e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:universal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:you-don't-say"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:complexology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6299">
    <title>[1310.6299] A Core Calculus for Provenance</title>
    <dc:date>2014-08-22T12:04:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6299</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Provenance is an increasing concern due to the ongoing revolution in sharing and processing scientific data on the Web and in other computer systems. It is proposed that many computer systems will need to become provenance-aware in order to provide satisfactory accountability, reproducibility, and trust for scientific or other high-value data. To date, there is not a consensus concerning appropriate formal models or security properties for provenance. In previous work, we introduced a formal framework for provenance security and proposed formal definitions of properties called disclosure and obfuscation. 
In this article, we study refined notions of positive and negative disclosure and obfuscation in a concrete setting, that of a general-purpose programing language. Previous models of provenance have focused on special-purpose languages such as workflows and database queries. We consider a higher-order, functional language with sums, products, and recursive types and functions, and equip it with a tracing semantics in which traces themselves can be replayed as computations. We present an annotation-propagation framework that supports many provenance views over traces, including standard forms of provenance studied previously. We investigate some relationships among provenance views and develop some partial solutions to the disclosure and obfuscation problems, including correct algorithms for disclosure and positive obfuscation based on trace slicing.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>formalization citation information-architecture mathematics quite-odd rather-interesting metadata</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3c4cf16b12f8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:formalization"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:information-architecture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mathematics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:quite-odd"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:metadata"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.wired.com/2014/07/the-network-structure-of-jewish-texts">
    <title>The Network Structure of Jewish Texts | Science Blogs | WIRED</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-22T12:51:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.wired.com/2014/07/the-network-structure-of-jewish-texts</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is a particularly appropriate method when it comes to Jewish texts. Many of these texts not only cite each other, but comment upon them, a sort of citation on steroids. For example, there is the Mishnah, part of the Oral Law in Judaism. Each section of Mishnah is in turn commented upon by the Gemara, and together these two things make up the Talmud. And there are medieval rabbis who in turn comment on the Talmud, as well as each other. And so on and so forth. With each text of course referencing and annotating the Bible. Ultimately, classical Jewish literature is one that is steeped in annotation and reference. It is the quintessential network.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-theory citation conversation culture digital-humanities interesting work-in-progress</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:d6286431e1c0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conversation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:work-in-progress"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=spru-response-final.pdf&amp;site=25">
    <title>Response to the Call for Evidence &amp;c &amp;c [PDF]</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-09T15:00:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=spru-response-final.pdf&amp;site=25</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>metrics research horse-races academic-culture citation corporatism so-it-begins disruption-in-action</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:f0cd77709b64/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:metrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:horse-races"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:corporatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:so-it-begins"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disruption-in-action"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7653">
    <title>[1304.7653] Usage History of Scientific Literature: Nature Metrics and Metrics of Nature Publications</title>
    <dc:date>2014-04-15T10:42:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7653</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In this study, we analyze the dynamic usage history of Nature publications over time using Nature metrics data. We conduct analysis from two perspectives. On the one hand, we examine how long it takes before the articles' downloads reach 50%/80% of the total; on the other hand, we compare the percentage of total downloads in 7 days, 30 days, and 100 days after publication. In general, papers are downloaded most frequently within a short time period right after their publication. And we find that compared with Non-Open Access papers, readers' attention on Open Access publications are more enduring. Based on the usage data of a newly published paper, regression analysis could predict the future expected total usage counts.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture publishing citation news-cycle disintermediation-in-action open-access interesting consider:what-might-happen-with-updating</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:6340761b6515/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:news-cycle"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:consider:what-might-happen-with-updating"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8224">
    <title>[1310.8224] Transitive Reduction of Citation Networks</title>
    <dc:date>2014-03-31T11:23:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8224</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In many complex networks the vertices are ordered in time, and edges represent causal connections. We propose methods of analysing such directed acyclic graphs taking into account the constraints of causality and highlighting the causal structure. We illustrate our approach using citation networks formed from academic papers, patents, and US Supreme Court verdicts. We show how transitive reduction reveals fundamental differences in the citation practices of different areas, how it highlights particularly interesting work, and how it can correct for the effect that the age of a document has on its citation count. Finally, we transitively reduce null models of citation networks with similar degree distributions and show the difference in degree distributions after transitive reduction to illustrate the lack of causal structure in such models.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation social-networks how-did-I-miss-this? data-analysis data-cleaning interesting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:19b57d679598/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:how-did-I-miss-this?"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:data-analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:data-cleaning"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4904">
    <title>[1310.4904] Dynamic Extraction of Key Paper from the Cluster Using Variance Values of Cited Literature</title>
    <dc:date>2014-03-30T12:00:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4904</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[When looking into recent research trends in the field of academic landscape, citation network analysis is common and automated clustering of many academic papers has been achieved by making good use of various techniques. However, specifying the features of each area identified by automated clustering or dynamically extracted key papers in each research area has not yet been achieved. In this study, therefore, we propose a method for dynamically specifying the key papers in each area identified by clustering. We will investigate variance values of the publication year of the cited literature and calculate each cited paper's importance by applying the variance values to the PageRank algorithm.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation bibliometrics social-networks digital-humanities graph-theory user-interface interesting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:904b4038b474/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bibliometrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:graph-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:user-interface"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interesting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1785">
    <title>[1311.1785] The Rise of Network Ecology: Maps of the topic diversity and scientific collaboration</title>
    <dc:date>2014-02-26T11:11:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1785</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Network ecologists investigate the structure, function, and evolution of ecological systems using network models and analyses. For example, network techniques have been used to study community interactions (i.e., food-webs, mutualisms), gene flow across landscapes, and the sociality of individuals in populations. The work presented here uses a bibliographic and network approach to (1) document the rise of Network Ecology, (2) identify the diversity of topics addressed in the field, and (3) map the structure of scientific collaboration among contributing scientists. Our aim is to provide a broad overview of this emergent field that highlights its diversity and to provide a foundation for future advances. To do this, we searched the ISI Web of Science database for ecology publications between 1900 and 2012 using the search terms for research areas of Environmental Sciences & Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the topic tag ecology. From these records we identified the Network Ecology publications using the topic terms network, graph theory, and web while controlling for the usage of misleading phrases. The resulting corpus entailed 29,513 publications between 1936 and 2012. We document the rapid rise in Network Ecology publications per year reaching a magnitude of over 5% of the ecological publications in 2012. Drawing topical information from the publication record content (titles, abstracts, keywords) and collaboration information from author listing, our analysis highlights the diversity and clustering of topics addressed within Network Ecology and reveals the highly collaborative approach of scientists publishing in this field. We conclude that Network Ecology is a large and rapidly growing area of ecology, and we expect continued growth of this research field.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-theory social-networks academia system-of-professions citation academic-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:bdf678cf6b26/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:system-of-professions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8220">
    <title>[1310.8220] Prediction of highly cited papers</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-04T21:35:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8220</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In an article written five years ago [arXiv:0809.0522], we described a method for predicting which scientific papers will be highly cited in the future, even if they are currently not highly cited. Applying the method to real citation data we made predictions about papers we believed would end up being well cited. Here we revisit those predictions, five years on, to see how well we did. Among the over 2000 papers in our original data set, we examine the fifty that, by the measures of our previous study, were predicted to do best and we find that they have indeed received substantially more citations in the intervening years than other papers, even after controlling for the number of prior citations. On average these top fifty papers have received 23 times as many citations in the last five years as the average paper in the data set as a whole, and 15 times as many as the average paper in a randomly drawn control group that started out with the same number of citations. Applying our prediction technique to current data, we also make new predictions of papers that we believe will be well cited in the next few years.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>hey-I-know-this-guy social-networks citation academic-culture prediction</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:1d33a3dd8bd5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hey-I-know-this-guy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:prediction"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0463">
    <title>[1302.0463] Modeling competition between vigorousness and dormancy in citation networks</title>
    <dc:date>2013-04-10T11:27:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0463</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In citation networks, the activity of papers usually decreases with age and dormant papers may be discovered and become fashionable again. To model this phenomenon, a competition mechanism is suggested which incorporates two factors: vigorousness and dormancy. Based on this idea, a citation network model is proposed, in which a node has two discrete stage: vigorous and dormant. Vigorous nodes can be deactivated and dormant nodes may be activated and become vigorous. The evolution of the network couples addition of new nodes and state transitions of old ones. Both analytical calculation and numerical simulation show that the degree distribution of nodes in generated networks displays a good right-skewed behaviour. Particularly, scale-free networks are obtained as the deactivated vertex is target selected and exponential networks are realized for the random-selected case. Moreover, the measurement of four real-world citation networks achieves a good agreement with the stochastic model.]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation social-networks models-and-modes progress-in-action nudge-targets simulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:192b9dc263da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models-and-modes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:progress-in-action"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nudge-targets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:simulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://hobbb.tumblr.com/post/46415421898/metropolitan-metrics">
    <title>The local press as poetry publisher 1800-1900 - Metropolitan metrics</title>
    <dc:date>2013-03-31T12:33:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://hobbb.tumblr.com/post/46415421898/metropolitan-metrics</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[All journals except one, History Workshop Journal, focus on metropolitan topics, with JVC, Victorian Studies, Media History and Nineteenth Century Literature showing a particular preference for the capital. The distinctive content of HWJ, related to its egalitarian tradition of history from below, may explain why its articles use The Times significantly less often than it uses provincial papers. It may also be related to the specificity of social history, which – apparently – happens in a particular place, unlike political history and some types of cultural history, which seem to hover above place — but in reality, is tethered to London or the South-East. Perhaps too much ‘national’ political and cultural history is in fact regional. Or even provincial, if we use that word to mean a lack of awareness of the wider world? Did most Victorian politics, life and culture really happen in London and South-East England?

If history is more than the study of the exercise of power within traditional central political institutions, then there are more newspapers than The Times.]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation cultural-assumptions digital-humanities academic-culture the-anxiety-of-influence</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:57f76b24be05/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:the-anxiety-of-influence"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing.html">
    <title>BishopBlog: How to bury your academic writing</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-26T21:03:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Accessibility is the problem. However good  your chapter is, if readers don't have access to the book, they won't find it. In the past, there was at least a faint hope that they may happen upon the book in a library, but these days, most of us don't bother with any articles that we can't download from the internet. "]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing academic-culture citation disintermediation-targets</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:2365ea2db5ea/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:disintermediation-targets"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://gigaom.com/2012/08/20/plagiarism-defamation-and-the-power-of-hyperlinks/">
    <title>Plagiarism, defamation and the power of hyperlinks — Tech News and Analysis</title>
    <dc:date>2012-08-22T06:40:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://gigaom.com/2012/08/20/plagiarism-defamation-and-the-power-of-hyperlinks/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["David Weinberger, co-author of the seminal book The Cluetrain Manifesto and a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society, argued in a post about the journalistic principle of objectivity that “Objectivity is a trust mechanism you rely on when your medium can’t do links.” In other words, when you have the ability to link to information that supports your conclusions, it’s easier to get away with being subjective, because readers are able to follow the links and decide for themselves whether you are credible.

I think the same principle applies to plagiarism: it is something that occurs when a medium doesn’t allow — or at least doesn’t encourage — links to original sources. The internet may make it more likely that someone copies content from another, but it also makes it easier to fix."]]></description>
<dc:subject>cultural-assumptions cultural-norms plagiarism citation hyperlinks</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:87b57257f33b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:plagiarism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hyperlinks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4361">
    <title>[1108.4361] The relationship between acquaintanceship and coauthorship in scientific collaboration networks</title>
    <dc:date>2011-08-25T13:44:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4361</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This article examines the relationship between acquaintanceship and coauthorship patterns in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, geographically distributed research center. Two social networks are constructed and compared: a network of coauthorship, representing how researchers write articles with one another, and a network of acquaintanceship, representing how those researchers know each other on a personal level, based on their responses to an online survey. Statistical analyses of the topology and community structure of these networks point to the importance of small-scale, local, personal networks predicated upon acquaintanceship for accomplishing collaborative work in scientific communities."]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture network-theory citation social-networks</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:163253802e62/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1004">
    <title>[1008.1004] Identification of Overlapping Communities by Locally Calculating Community-Changing Resolution Levels</title>
    <dc:date>2010-08-10T11:11:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1004</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["…We tested our algorithm on a small benchmark graph and on a network of about 500 papers in information science (weighted with the Salton index of bibliographic coupling). In our tests, this approach results in characteristic ranges of resolution where a large resolution change does not lead to a growth of the natural community. Such stable modules were also obtained by applying the LFK algorithm but since we determine communities for all resolution values in one run, our approach is faster than the LFK reference. And our algorithm reveals the hierarchical structure of the graph more easily."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>network-theory communities social-networks citation algorithms exploratory-data-analysis heuristics</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:7a03d20f0108/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:network-theory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:communities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:algorithms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:exploratory-data-analysis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:heuristics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5444">
    <title>[1005.5444] Eugene Garfield and Algorithmic Historiography: Co-Words, Co-Authors, and Journal Names</title>
    <dc:date>2010-06-05T19:15:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5444</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Algorithmic historiography was proposed by Eugene Garfield in collaboration with Irving Sher in the 1960s, but further developed only recently into HistCite^{TM} with Alexander Pudovkin. As in history writing, HistCite^{TM} reconstructs by drawing intellectual lineages. In addition to cited references, however, documents can be attributed a multitude of other variables such as title words, keywords, journal names, author names, and even full texts. New developments in multidimensional scaling (MDS) enable us not only to visualize these patterns at each moment of time, but also to animate them over time. Using title words, co-authors, and journal names in Garfield's oeuvre, the method is demonstrated and further developed in this paper (and in the animation at this http URL). The variety and substantive content of the animation enables us to write, visualize, and animate the author's intellectual history."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>social-networks citation history quantitative-criticism influence academic-culture</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:80aec2df1f68/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:quantitative-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:influence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2010/04/what-does-it-meant-to-be-published.html">
    <title>Computational Complexity: What Does It Meant to be Published?</title>
    <dc:date>2010-04-06T10:55:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2010/04/what-does-it-meant-to-be-published.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["So what is the point of publication? Certainly you want your paper easily read and cited. But also you want a careful peer review leading to a polished version that has the stamp of approval by appearing in some respectable conference or journal. Publishing also acts as a filter, allowing the reader to get some idea of the level of quality of the paper before reading it. Almost any paper can appear on an archive site but it takes more to be published."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing academic-culture citation credentials access research</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:9ef23dbde9f6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:credentials"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3529v1">
    <title>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3529v1</title>
    <dc:date>2009-10-23T12:36:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.3529v1</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["This mystical belief in the magic of citation statis- tics can be found throughout the documentation for research assessment exercises, both national and in- stitutional. It can also be found in the work of those promoting the h-index and its variants."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academic-culture citation social-networks statistics misapplied-statistics</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3dc722d609d5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:misapplied-statistics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://vonahn.blogspot.com/2009/02/academic-publications-20.html">
    <title>Luis von Blog: Academic Publications 2.0</title>
    <dc:date>2009-04-06T11:47:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://vonahn.blogspot.com/2009/02/academic-publications-20.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Can a combination of a wiki, karma, and a voting method like reddit or digg substitute the current system of academic publication?"

[A: yes]
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia academic-culture credentials citation publishing collaboration science research writing web2.0</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:60d5001af7e2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:credentials"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:writing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:web2.0"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html">
    <title>All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing</title>
    <dc:date>2009-04-05T11:25:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Can we learn anything from all this? Going back to the triumph-of-evil quote, we may ask, how can we defend ourselves from the bogus quote? It is clearly unreasonable for anyone to have to prove a quote bogus...."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>quotes nanohistory citation rhetoric credentials writing history accuracy tricks</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:10c6cce2d01d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:quotes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:nanohistory"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rhetoric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:credentials"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:writing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:accuracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tricks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.pmla.org/altsource.html">
    <title>PMLA Alternative Source Citing</title>
    <dc:date>2008-12-30T12:49:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.pmla.org/altsource.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["When citing Magic 8-Balls:..."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>citation bibliography humor academia academic-culture language geek</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:294f86f21cf4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bibliography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:humor"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:language"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:geek"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blog.oddhead.com/2008/11/14/the-predict-flu-using-search-study-you-didnt-hear-about/">
    <title>The “predict flu using search” study you didn’t hear about: Oddhead Blog: Prediction Markets, Gambling, Electronic Commerce, Artificial Intelligence: David Pennock: Yahoo! Research</title>
    <dc:date>2008-11-14T12:49:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blog.oddhead.com/2008/11/14/the-predict-flu-using-search-study-you-didnt-hear-about/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["in the world of science, being first means a great deal and can be the determining factor in whether a study gets published. The truth is, although the efforts were independent, ours was published first — and Clinical Infectious Diseases scooped Nature — a decent consolation prize amid the go-google din."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:arthegall forcshalizi science epidemiology publication MSM mainstream media Google-shadow citation marketing academia</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:c8f61900fe38/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:arthegall"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:forcshalizi"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:epidemiology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publication"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:MSM"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:mainstream"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Google-shadow"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:marketing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/mattjb">
    <title>CiteULike: Matthew (mattjb)'s library</title>
    <dc:date>2007-07-15T11:44:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/mattjb</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Matthew Berryman is citing some of what we should see.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>bibliography citation complex-systems collaboration CiteULike science reading social-networks</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ab6c88b108c2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bibliography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:complex-systems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:CiteULike"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:reading"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.zotero.org/">
    <title>Zotero - The Next-Generation Research Tool</title>
    <dc:date>2007-07-12T21:12:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.zotero.org/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>via:logista collaboration citation authority research scholarship community social-norms web2.0 firefox annotation</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:25d81b8f75c7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:logista"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:authority"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scholarship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:community"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:web2.0"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:firefox"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:annotation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/07/how_should_unpr.html">
    <title>How should unproven findings be publicized?</title>
    <dc:date>2007-07-10T11:37:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/07/how_should_unpr.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>science research statistics publishing social-norms authority citation promotion openness open-sc</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ef17f530160a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:authority"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:promotion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:openness"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-sc"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://precedings.nature.com/documents/361/version/1">
    <title>Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate : Nature Precedings</title>
    <dc:date>2007-07-07T16:25:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://precedings.nature.com/documents/361/version/1</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This may or may not be true each discipline; depends on their folkways.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia publishing collaboration citation bibliography research impact bioinformatics</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:295c78c85c08/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bibliography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:impact"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bioinformatics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=382">
    <title>Easily Distracted » Blog Archive » “Citation Plagiarism”</title>
    <dc:date>2007-06-21T14:38:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=382</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["[A] lot of scholarly writing in the humanities and some social sciences uses citation as a marker of institutional sociology, as a performance of intellectual identity, as an affect of authority rather than the substance of it."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>academia scholarship citation writing papers publishing social-norms sociology semiotics</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:52d1c5046fd3/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:scholarship"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:writing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:papers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:semiotics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/06/citation-practices/">
    <title>Crooked Timber » » Citation Practices</title>
    <dc:date>2007-06-08T13:16:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/06/citation-practices/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>citation blogging academia social-norms publishing worklife personal-brand bibliography</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b6e7886bd018/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:blogging"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worklife"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:personal-brand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bibliography"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/05/does-open-access-correlate-with-quality.html">
    <title>The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics: Does Open Access correlate with quality and recency?</title>
    <dc:date>2007-05-21T10:55:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/05/does-open-access-correlate-with-quality.html</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["...the most prominent (and thus most citable) authors are more likely to make their articles available in an OA model, and that they are more likely to do so with their most important (and thus most citable) articles."
]]></description>
<dc:subject>open-access publishing academia collaboration citation cultural-norms social-networks</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:b0beb778f419/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:open-access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:collaboration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-norms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.eigenfactor.org/index.php">
    <title>eigenfactor.org - ranking and mapping scientific journals</title>
    <dc:date>2007-03-27T23:11:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.eigenfactor.org/index.php</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>academic publishing journals ranking performance metrics networks citation statistics tools search-engines</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fbcf5728c220/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:journals"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:ranking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:performance"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:metrics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:tools"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:search-engines"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/105-4946124-2855649?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=%22Bill+Tozier%22">
    <title>Amazon.com: &quot;Bill Tozier&quot;: Books</title>
    <dc:date>2007-03-05T11:34:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/105-4946124-2855649?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&amp;field-keywords=%22Bill+Tozier%22</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Somehow more professionally satisfying than just Googling yourself: Amazon yourself!
]]></description>
<dc:subject>via:bkerr citation social-networks book-search books Amazon vanity</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:39cce5a95778/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:via:bkerr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:citation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:social-networks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:book-search"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:Amazon"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:vanity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>