From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:32:32 +0000
It could also that those 31% of articles have bad metadata, odd titles
which don't trigger the intended audience, are in languages most
people don't know how to read, etc. Don't get me wrong, they very
well could be superfluous in the grand academia scheme - but there
could easily be other reasons why those articles haven't found their
Eric Elmore |
Electronic Resources Coordinator |
The University of Texas at San Antonio |
One UTSA Circle |
San Antonio, TX. 78249-0671 |
[log in to unmask] |
From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:22:18 -0700
The article provides important data.
The major finding is how many scientific articles exist at the moment
- 80 million.
The second finding is that 31% of all articles are vain - no one is
interested in them.
I also reserve a question. The author claims that if the Sci-Hub
server is discovered, the problem is resolved. Is it that difficult to
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:42 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:53:28 -0700
> An article in Science (appearing there makes it important) makes a striking prognosis about the future of journal publication. No comment!
> Jim O'Donnell