Re: [GOAL] Open Access Week at Cambridge University - Monday

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

Before seeing Prof. Hawking’s very hot these ‘Properties of expanding 
universes’ made open access on your website, I thought our OA journal 
"Universe" (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe) is the largest. It 
should have been put many times bigger as "Universes" following the name 
style of our first journals Molecules 
(http://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules), Sensors 
(http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors), Algorithms 
(http://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms), ...


On 23/10/2017 10:30, Danny Kingsley wrote:
> 
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Welcome to Open Access Week 2017! At the Office of Scholarly
> Communication at Cambridge University we are celebrating with a series
> of blog posts, events and announcements. We will send out a daily notice
> and information will be added to our OA Week webpage
> https://osc.cam.ac.uk/open-access/open-access-week-2017 throughout the week.
>
> *Blogs*
>
> Each day we will be publishing a blog post written by a different member
> of the Office of Scholarly Communication team. Continuing on from the
> tradition of last year, Cambridge is sharing an analysis of how our work
> is available above and beyond in the University repository, Apollo. You
> can compare and contrast (if you desire) with last year’s figures
> https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1080 Read the new blog
> *How open is Cambridge? 2017 edition* here: http://ow.ly/HL4Y30g12tY
>
> *Announcement 1 - Properties of expanding Open Access*
>
> We are delighted to announce that Professor Stephen Hawking has granted
> the University of Cambridge permission to make his thesis freely
> available and Open Access in Apollo. Our most hotly requested University
> of Cambridge doctoral thesis by far has long been Prof. Hawking’s
> ‘Properties of expanding universes’, published in 1966, and we are
> thrilled that this seminal work is now available freely and openly to
> anyone in the world. Download Prof. Hawking’s thesis here:
> https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.11283
>
> *Announcement 2  - Digital theses revolution at the University of Cambridge*
>
> We are also excited to announce that the University of Cambridge is now
> enabling wider dissemination of the unique doctoral research carried out
> across the University. In order to prevent the need to retroactively
> digitise PhD theses, from October 2017 all PhD students graduating from
> the University of Cambridge will be required to deposit an electronic
> copy of their work for future preservation. The Board of Graduate
> Studies is opening the digital borders to researchers from across the
> globe, and allowing unprecedented access to Cambridge’s treasure trove
> of doctoral research. Find out more here https://osc.cam.ac.uk/theses
>
> **
>
> *Events - Monday*
>
> Today the talk ‘Improving Openness and Reproducibility of Scientific
> Research’ will be taking place, featuring Dr Timothy Errington and
> hosted by the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute. Come along at 4pm
> and find out about the cultural changes needed to improve scientific
> communication. But if you cannot make it have no fear! We will be
> filming this event and sharing this recording later in the week:
> https://crukcambridgecentre.org.uk/events/mon-23-oct-1600-improving-openness-and-reproducibility-scientific-research
>
> Also on Monday 23 October, from 5.00-6.30pm as part of the Festival of
> Ideas, OSC team members Katie Hughes and Lucy Welch will be presenting
> alongside the Moore Library’s Georgina Cronin on the topic of Fake News
> at the event ‘Popping the Filter Bubble: How Facts Can Help You’. This
> event is sold out currently, but you are welcome to show up and see if
> there is space on the night for this interactive event. Find out more
> here:
> https://www.festivalofideas.cam.ac.uk/events/limited-tickets-may-be-available-door-popping-filter-bubble-how-facts-can-help-you
>
> *Events during the week*
>
> On *Tuesday* we will be offering a webinar, ‘How to Spot a Predatory
> Publisher’ https://www.training.cam.ac.uk/osc/event/2246800 A recording
> of this webinar will be made available to those registered after the event.
>
> On *Wednesday* we will be hosting one of our popular ‘Helping
> Researchers Publish’ events, for the first time ever tailored for
> researchers and research support staff in the Humanities, Arts and
> Social Sciences: https://www.training.cam.ac.uk/osc/event/2246836
>
> This event will bring together publishers and funders to discuss topics
> ranging from searching for a suitable publishing platform to book
> processing charges:
>
> ·Chris Harrison (Cambridge University Press)
>
> ·James Purdon (Technographies, Open Humanities Press)
>
> ·Gemma Ware (The Conversation)
>
> ·Philip Cohen (SocArXiv)
>
> ·Rupert Gatti (Open Book Publishers)
>
> ·Dr Dora Alexopoulou and Dr Lisa-Maria Mueller (Faculty of Modern &
> Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge)
>
> ·Lara Speicher (UCL Press)
>
> Finally, on *Friday* we will be holding another ‘Helping Researchers
> 

Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

We are sponsoring hundreds of scholarly/academic conferences now.
We will add the exact number of conferences we are sponsoring in our
next annual report.

On 13.09.2016 05:20, Dr. Shu-Kun Lin wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> MDPI Annual Report 2015 is available to downloaded:
> http://img.mdpi.org/data/annual-report-mdpi-2015.pdf
>
> According to our own statistical data (our scilit.net), MDPI is among
> the 20 largest journal publishers in 2015 as listed at our website
> http://sciforum.net/statistics/top-publishers-by-articles
>
> At our scilit.net, the DOI numbers registered or the papers published
> last month indicate that most recently in the month of August 2016,
> MDPI publishes more than Hindawi and PLoS and perhaps becomes the
> second largest OA publisher: #1 SpringerNature (BMC, SpringerOpen):
> 3556 #2 MDPI: 2028 #3 PLOS: 1928 #4 Hindawi: 1533 #5 Frontiers: 1204
>
> You are welcome to visit our new headquarters office building we
> purchased. Our new address: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel. This
> year we set up two offices in Europe: in Spain and Serbia, see:
> http://www.mdpi.com/about for more details. We are growing.
>
> Best regards, Shu-Kun
>
> -- Dr. Shu-Kun Lin President of MDPI Postal address: MDPI AG,
> Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland Office Location: St.
> Alban-Anlage 66, CH-4052 Basel, Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
> (office); Fax +41 61 302 8918 Mobile: +41 79 322 3379; Skype:
> mdpibasel-lin E-mail: l...@mdpi.com Company homepage:
> http://www.mdpi.com My homepage: http://www.mdpi.org/lin
>
> On 08.08.2016 14:01, Heather Morrison wrote:
>> Thank you, Dietrich Rordorf.
>>
>> To clarify, this is a limitation of the study, not an assumption.
>> That is, I only note the price per journal, but do not assume that
>>  this is the only relevant variable to understanding the impact of
>> the APC.
>>
>> The APC study in brief is a longitudinal study of the APC list
>> prices of a large sample of journals whose publishers have been
>> included in DOAJ. There are other aspects of the APC that could be
>> (or are being) usefully addressed by other researchers, such as
>> what payers are actually paying, hybrid journals, quantity and
>> qualities of articles published (qualities could include length,
>> language, formats, linking within articles), etc. If anyone has
>> time and energy to conduct research in this area, there is plenty
>> of work.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>>
>>
>>  Original message  From: Dietrich Rordorf
>> <drord...@gmail.com> Date: 08-08-2016 1:48 AM (GMT-05:00) To:
>> "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016
>>
>> Dear Dr. Morrison,
>>
>> I think that you make a very strong assumption of equal
>> distribution of journal sizes, which to me does not hold up to a
>> reality check. Because of this the "average" APC you compute is
>> three to four times lower compared to what authors/institutions
>> actually pay to MDPI per paper in average.
>>
>> To complete your history of APC changes, you may also want to
>> consider the following websites (or their archived counterparts, in
>> case they are taken offline):
>>
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2011 (http://weblock.io/8E4P1NWIOG)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2012 (http://weblock.io/RO6RKQRHM6)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2013 (http://weblock.io/8E4P1NNIQ4)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2014 (http://weblock.io/YVLDG6ZHR1)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2015 (http://weblock.io/3YK2L6RUWD)
>> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2016 (http://weblock.io/6Z4WKM6B2)
>>
>> Kind regards, Dietrich Rordorf
>>
>> E-mail: drord...@gmail.com <mailto:drord...@gmail.com> Tel. +41 76
>>  561 41 83
>>
>> 2016-07-29 16:58 GMT+02:00 Heather Morrison
>> <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>> <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>:
>>
>> A preliminary version of our MDPI APC longitudinal study is now
>> available:
>> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/07/29/mdpi-apc-fdp-2011-2016/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
<https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/07/29/mdpi-apc-fdp-2011-2016/>
>>
>> In brief
>>
>> MDPI is a new commercial publisher committed to the APC model,
>> with a not uncommon approach of free publication for new journals.
>> Thanks to Solomon and Björk, we have APC data for 25 journals for
>> both 2011 and 2016. The average APC for this group of journ

Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

Dear Colleagues,

MDPI Annual Report 2015 is available to downloaded:
http://img.mdpi.org/data/annual-report-mdpi-2015.pdf

According to our own statistical data (our scilit.net), MDPI is among
the 20 largest journal publishers in 2015 as listed at our website
http://sciforum.net/statistics/top-publishers-by-articles

At our scilit.net, the DOI numbers registered or the papers published
last month indicate that most recently in the month of August 2016, MDPI
publishes more than Hindawi and PLoS and perhaps becomes the second
largest OA publisher:
#1 SpringerNature (BMC, SpringerOpen): 3556
#2 MDPI: 2028
#3 PLOS: 1928
#4 Hindawi: 1533
#5 Frontiers: 1204

You are welcome to visit our new headquarters office building we
purchased. Our new address: St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel. This year
we set up two offices in Europe: in Spain and Serbia, see:
http://www.mdpi.com/about for more details. We are growing.

Best regards,
Shu-Kun

--
Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
President of MDPI
Postal address: MDPI AG, Postfach, CH-4020 Basel, Switzerland
Office Location: St. Alban-Anlage 66, CH-4052 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 (office); Fax +41 61 302 8918
Mobile: +41 79 322 3379; Skype: mdpibasel-lin
E-mail: l...@mdpi.com
Company homepage: http://www.mdpi.com
My homepage: http://www.mdpi.org/lin

On 08.08.2016 14:01, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Thank you, Dietrich Rordorf.
>
> To clarify, this is a limitation of the study, not an assumption.
> That is, I only note the price per journal, but do not assume that
> this is the only relevant variable to understanding the impact of the
> APC.
>
> The APC study in brief is a longitudinal study of the APC list prices
> of a large sample of journals whose publishers have been included in
> DOAJ. There are other aspects of the APC that could be (or are being)
> usefully addressed by other researchers, such as what payers are
> actually paying, hybrid journals, quantity and qualities of articles
> published (qualities could include length, language, formats, linking
> within articles), etc. If anyone has time and energy to conduct
> research in this area, there is plenty of work.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
>
>  Original message  From: Dietrich Rordorf
> <drord...@gmail.com> Date: 08-08-2016 1:48 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global
> Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> Subject:
> Re: [GOAL] MDPI APCs 2011 - 2016
>
> Dear Dr. Morrison,
>
> I think that you make a very strong assumption of equal distribution
>  of journal sizes, which to me does not hold up to a reality check.
> Because of this the "average" APC you compute is three to four times
>  lower compared to what authors/institutions actually pay to MDPI per
>  paper in average.
>
> To complete your history of APC changes, you may also want to
> consider the following websites (or their archived counterparts, in
> case they are taken offline):
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2011 (http://weblock.io/8E4P1NWIOG)
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2012 (http://weblock.io/RO6RKQRHM6)
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2013 (http://weblock.io/8E4P1NNIQ4)
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2014 (http://weblock.io/YVLDG6ZHR1)
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2015 (http://weblock.io/3YK2L6RUWD)
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc-2016 (http://weblock.io/6Z4WKM6B2)
>
> Kind regards, Dietrich Rordorf
>
> E-mail: drord...@gmail.com <mailto:drord...@gmail.com> Tel. +41 76
> 561 41 83
>
> 2016-07-29 16:58 GMT+02:00 Heather Morrison
> <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>:
>
> A preliminary version of our MDPI APC longitudinal study is now
> available:
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/07/29/mdpi-apc-fdp-2011-2016/
>
>
>
>
>
>
<https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2016/07/29/mdpi-apc-fdp-2011-2016/>
>
> In brief
>
> MDPI is a new commercial publisher committed to the APC model, with a
> not uncommon approach of free publication for new journals. Thanks to
> Solomon and Björk, we have APC data for 25 journals for both 2011 and
> 2016. The average APC for this group of journals increased from 624
> CHF in 2011 to 1,148 CHF in 2016, an average increase of 524 CHF or
> an 84% price increase in contrast to a compound U.S. inflation rate
> during this time frame of 8.7% (EU would have been lower).
>
>> From 2014 to 2015, MDPI journals either stayed at the same APC or
> lowered their price. From 2015 to 2016, all journals either stayed
> the same in price or increased in price, with the average increase
> 18% or 60 CHF.
>
> As of March 2016, MDPI listed 155 journals on their website. Of
> these, almost half (72) are <>. The average APC is 359 CHF (662
> CHF when non-charging journa

Re: [GOAL] OASPA Members Show Further Growth of Fully OA Journals Using a CC-BY License in 2015 Data

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

Glad to know this. It looks MDPI grows faster than the average :)

On 14.07.2016 11:08, Leyla Williams wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The latest post on the OASPA blog shows the growth of CC BY articles
>  in fully open access journals published by OASPA members.  This is
> an update to our previous posts on this topic and includes articles
> published up until the end of 2015.  The figures are available for
> download, as well as information on other licenses.
>
> We are pleased to include data showing growth of the Directory of
> Open Access Books (DOAB) again this year.
>
> See http://oaspa.org/oaspa-members-ccby-growth-2015-data.
>
> Best wishes, Leyla — Leyla Williams Events and Communications
> Coordinator Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA
> oaspa.org | Twitter: @OASPA
>  | Sign up for
> our mailing list
>
> Registrations are now open for 8th Conference of Open Access
> Scholarly Publishing, COASP:
> oaspa.org/conference/registrations-and-accommodation
> 
>
>
> ___ GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: CALL for Proposals for Open Repositories 2016

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

This file of "CALL for Proposals for Open Repositories 2016" is very
well prepared. Maybe the papers presented can be considered for
publication in our OA journal "Publications", an open access journal on
scholarly publishing (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications) free of
publishing fees. At least a conference report can be published in
"Publications".

Using this opportunity I would like to invite the members on this
mailing list to publish papers in "Publications".

Best regards,
Shu-Kun

On 04.12.2015 13:07, Elin Stangeland wrote:
> From the Open Repositories Conference 2016 organizers
>
> December 1, 2015
>
> Read it online: http://or2016.net/call-for-papers/
>
> Call for Proposals for Open Repositories 2016: Illuminating the
> World
>
> The Eleventh International Conference on Open Repositories, OR2016,
> will be held on June 13th-16th, 2016in Dublin, Ireland. The
> organizers are pleased to issue this call for contributions to the
> program.
>
> As previous Open Repositories have demonstrated, the use of digital
> repositories to manage research, scholarly and cultural information
> is well established and increasingly mature. Entering our second
> decade, we have an opportunity to reflect on where we’ve been and,
> more importantly, where we’re heading. New development continues
> apace, and we’ve reached the time when many organizations are
> exploring expansive connections with larger processes both inside and
> outside traditional boundaries. Open Repositories 2016 will explore
> how our rich collections and infrastructure are now an inherent part
> of contemporary scholarship and research and how they have expanded
> to touch many aspects of our academic and cultural enterprises.
>
> The theme of OR2016 is “Illuminating the World.” OR2016 will provide
>  an opportunity to explore the ways in which repositories and related
>  infrastructure and processes:
>
> * bring different disciplines, collections, and people to
> light;
>
> * expose research, scholarship, and collections from
> developing countries;
>
> * increase openness of collections, software, data and
> workflows;
>
> * highlight data patterns and user pathways through
> collections; and
>
> * how we can organize to better support these - and other
> - infrastructures.
>
> We welcome proposals on these ideas, but also on the theoretical,
> practical, technical, organizational or administrative topics related
> to digital repositories.  Submissions that demonstrate original and
> repository-related work outside of these themes will be considered,
> but preference will be given to submissions which address them. We
> are particularly interested in the following themes.
>
> 1.  Supporting Open Scholarship, Open Data, and Open Science
>
> Papers are invited to consider how repositories can best support the
>  needs of open science and open scholarship to make research as
> accessible and useful as possible, including:
>
> * Open access, open data and open educational resources
>
> * Scholarly workflows, publishing and communicating
> scientific knowledge
>
> * Exposure of research and scholarship from developing
> countries and under-resourced communities and disciplines
>
> * Compliance with funder mandates
>
> 2. Repositories and Cultural Heritage
>
> Papers are invited to consider how repositories and their associated
>  infrastructures best support the needs of cultural heritage
> collections, organizations, and researchers. Areas of interest
> include:
>
> * Impact of aggregation on repository infrastructure and
>  management
>
> * Exposure of collections and cultural heritage from
> developing countries and under-resourced communities and disciplines
>
> * Special considerations in access and use of cultural
> heritage collections
>
> * Reuse and analysis of content.
>
> 3. Repositories of high volume and/or complex data and collections
>
> Papers are invited to consider how we can use tools and processes to
>  highlight data patterns and user pathways through large corporas
> including:
>
> * Data and text mining
>
> * Entity recognition
>
> * Linked data
>
> * Standardized interfaces
>
> * Interaction with large-scale computation and simulation
> processes
>
> * Issues of scale and size beyond traditional repository
>  contexts
>
> 4. Managing Research Data, Software, and Workflows
>
> Papers are invited to consider how repositories can support the needs
> of research data and related software and workflows. Areas of
> interest are:
>
> * Curation lifecycle management, including storage,
> software and workflows
>
> * Digital preservation tools and services
>
> * Reuse and analysis of scientific content
>
> * Scholarly workflows, publishing and 

[GOAL] MDPI was removed from Mr. Beall's list on 28 October 2015.

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

MDPI was removed from Mr. Beall's list on 28 October 2015.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: **** SPAM **** Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Dr. Shu-Kun Lin]

Yes, be patient!!!

Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
Publisher of MDPI journals
President of MDPI
MDPI AG
Postfach, CH-4005 Basel, Switzerland
Office Location: Klybeckstrasse 64, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 (office)
Fax +41 61 302 8918
Mobile: +41 79 322 3379; Skype: mdpibasel-lin
E-mail: l...@mdpi.com
Company homepage: http://www.mdpi.com
My homepage: http://www.mdpi.org/lin

On 15.08.2015 00:33, Hélène.Bosc wrote:
 Dear Lucie,

 How lucky you are to write a fluent and perfect English!
 You are able to defend easily your point of view on the list and I hope that
 after this first message, you will dare to participate to the discussion
 about OA itself.
 In you message you have decided to break your silence in being  the advocate
 of a newcomer. In my bad english  on my turn, I will try to be the advocate
 of the ancient members of the list.
 I participate to this list since its creation in 1998 and I can tell you
 that when a subject is discussed  in 2015, it has often been discussed more
 than 10 times before.
 And when it is about a new terminology, it's really boring because it has
 been discussed more than 100 times and we know that it does not help to the
 OA progress.
 In reading the exchanges that seem like a very old tune, some can have a
 resigned sight, others can put the message in the trash with anger, some can
 say : This time, it's too much: I leave the list and others like Stevan
 can burst out!
 We are numerous and we are all different.
 Be patient Lucie, be patient Nicolas!

 Hélène Bosc

 - Original Message -
 From: Lucie Burgess lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org
 Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 7:33 PM
 Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues


 Dear Stevan and all

 I am very engaged by the GOAL open access list and I find reading it
 informing, educating, stimulating, and inspiring by turn. The debate it
 engenders is laudable.

 But I have never posted to the list. May I say I thought this comment
 below was a rather inappropriate way to treat someone who is new to the
 list and to the debate and who wishes to engage with it.

 Please, can we treat people with respect in responding to the comments
 they make, and avoid making sarcastic comments which I feel are unhelpful.
 The debate will be richer and hopefully better informed by having a
 welcoming and inclusive approach. Not everyone is as knowledgeable about
 the history of open access or the issues as Stevan - surely we would do
 better to change that by fostering a mutually supportive approach?

 Response such as this one below, are one of the reasons I read the list
 but am discouraged from posting to it. On this occasion I have been
 tempted out of my shell!

 Best wishes,
 Lucie


 Lucie Burgess
 Associate Director for Digital Libraries
 Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
 Clarendon Building, Broad Street, Oxford
 Senior Research Fellow, Hertford College
 Tel: +44 (0)1865 277104
 +44 (0)7725 842619
 Twitter @LucieCBurgess
 LinkedIn LucieCBurgess






 On 14/08/2015 17:28, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:

 Perhaps it¹s time for our newcomer, Nicolas Pettiaux, to stop posting for
 a while and do a little reading to inform himself about OA and its (short)
 history. Otherwise he is just making us recapitulate it for him.

 On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Nicolas Pettiaux nico...@pettiaux.be
 wrote:

 Dear

 I appreciate these discussions and clarifications. For me, and for most
 people who are nex to the subjects and I meet, Gold open access and
 green open access are confusing terms, even though they have been
 used
 for a long time in official documents.

 Green refers to nature and gold to expensive. What else for newcomers
 (=
 most people in fact) ?

 And nature is not necessarily cheap, while gold is most of the time
 expensive.

 What is cheap open access ? By cheap open access, I mean the full
 price of publishing a work (most of the time online only) in such a way
 that its overal price be as low as possible and ONLY reflect the actual
 costs ?

 The best method I can think of is forget about ANY journals, and
 consider as publication quality paper a work that is published
 anywhere online, be it on an institutional (open) repository or any
 website. Stop counting papers but only refer to their quality as
 measured for example effective evaluation of a committee made of human
 beings and not anymore by any accounting technique. Yes, this would
 suppose that on a per document base, or per person base, a committee
 would have to do actual work. But this is done already for most grant
 attribution or tenure selection processes. Maybe not yet by the actual
 reading of the papers and comments about his own papers an authors
 would
 write.
 Comments on a public website where the paper is published could also be
 taken into account in the evaluation.

 Many people agree today to consider that the peer review system