2011-12-11 18:10:10New research from last week series to SkS?
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.101.225

The research from last week series in my blog has been relatively popular (to my surprise, as it's just a bunch of copy/pasted abstracts of research papers). I have been thinking if it would be good to publish it here as well?

2011-12-12 01:13:16
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Ari, just as I see the merit in what John Hartz does in his weekly recap of SkS articles I also see the merit in a weekly recap of published abstracts. 

If you're willing to do it.

2011-12-12 21:11:31
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Yes, I am willing. :)

2011-12-13 09:35:24
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
58.170.1.154

That would be a great idea Ari. Since you have already done the work of writing your posts, putting them up here with a link back to your site would be great. Even just showing the volume of papers being published is important for people to see.

2011-12-13 10:38:15
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Agreed, that would make for an interesting weekly post.

2011-12-13 14:56:40Win win
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.70.54

A long geeky post about peer-review is very SkS. Would also be cool if you started each post with a green box saying this was cross-posted from your blog - that way, you get to raise your profile, gather up some google kudos and drive some traffic your way.

The question isn't whether you should cross-post but why has it taken this long to think of it? :-)

2011-12-13 17:07:20
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Ok, good. How about the format? Currently it's like this:

- brief introduction (same every week)

- headline for the first paper

- abstract of the first paper

- headline for the second paper

...

I thought there might be a change needed because we only include a part of the post to the front page, so we need a place where to cut these posts. I think I have to add a section to the introduction where I just say that:

"This week we have a study on X and a study on Y. There are also couple of studies about subject Z" and so on.

Also, I think I'll start a thread each week about the new studies before the weekly posting so everyone can comment on them. I'll post there the links to new studies right after I spot them. This way we can include possibly relevant commentary about the papers to the weekly posting if we want to. To this thread also others can point out new papers. We could even set up a team where each team member follows certain set of journals. I can manage myself, as I have done so far, but if there's interested people here, we can increase the journal coverage if there are more eyes on journals.

Do you want restrictions on the number of studies each week? Obviously, if there's lot of very interesting studies, then I need to include them all, but do you want me to include generally lots of papers or just carefully selected few?

2011-12-13 18:52:44
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.179.11.90

Generally I would go with as many papers as possible, so long as they are reasonably relevent to the broader picture of AGW. Over and above what the individual papers are about, the story of the number of papers coming out all the time is a story in itself. For the lower range of our readers, a summary of the papers in the list, 1 or two lines each is a good idea. Lets them see the breadth and the sometimes localised detail of all the research.

What would be great, but I don't know how much work is involved, is to add them to the history of AGW database as well. And Ideally build up a list of all the scientists involved. So much research by SO MANY people. You might be able to cloud source some of this work to the rest of us.

2011-12-13 23:38:40
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

If someone has the time to do this, I think it's a really good idea.

 

If we have people who regularly visit, even if they don't have the time to read it, they might start to understand 'holy cow, there sure is a lot of science being done on climate... maybe it's not just a conspiracy by a dozen illuminati!'

2011-12-14 04:33:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

A summary of perhaps the more interesting papers in the introduction would be useful (though what's interesting is subjective of course!).  I don't see any reason to put a limit on the number of papers, but I would suggest that again if there are any particularly interesting papers (in your opinion), that you list them first.

2011-12-15 22:05:32
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

To try things out, I copy/pasted this weeks (to be published in monday) content to a draft post here. There were no pictures yet, so I'll add one soon to try that too.

2011-12-16 18:12:46
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

I added one new paper with image to the draft. It seems that I have to change the formatting of my posts a little (add paragraph tags and change image right alignment setting), so that I can copy/paste them directly to SkS.

2011-12-20 16:59:22
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

By the way, I think that I'll start this at the beginning of 2012.