One-click to remove a verbose site from Google Search results, a new UserScript. Preset for Wikipedia, but the URL can be easily changed to be any verbose website. It should ideally be a website that you usually regularly want to remove from search results, but sometimes want to keep. The script is thus more flexible than a regular list-based site blocker.
Also, yes, I’m aware that my ‘add JURN as a link to Google Search’ UserScript has stopped working. Google has re-labelled the divs on the text links just below the search box. A similar script that allows the current search to be passed to Scholar has also stopped working, as have several similar menu scripts. I’m waiting for one of these scripts to update, and thus to show me how it needs to be fixed.
“Presumed predatory journals are abundant in oral health”, Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, March 2021.
From the 580 potentially eligible journals, 431 dental journals were included [and] 226 PP (52%) [i.e. were PP, “presumed predatory”]
Mention or reporting to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) database and a journal website with distorted or blurry images were the most influential variables for accurate classification into a predatory category or not.
Slightly badly phrased, on that last quote. The authors seem to want to state DOAJ listing = OK (if the link works and the journal’s DOAJ page can be found), while the inability to resize a logo picture correctly = dodgy. But their abstract’s sentence implies the reverse.
But yes, I’d agree that there does seem to be a curious and innate inability among makers of predatory journals to resize pictures correctly, though my eyes are perhaps better at spotting the subtleties of such things than many. Artists and designers tend to forget how dull most eyes are, in terms of not being able to see such details at a glance. Actually, I guess you might even bypass that problem — by training an AI to search for predatory journals through looking for logos and other images with incorrect proportions (squashed, stretched), or prestigious logos that are blurry when they should be crisp, or which have subtly colour-shifted. Bad use of naff fonts is also a tell-tale, I’d suggest, though that would be more difficult to train an AI for. But even just trawling for the DOAJ logo and a couple of other common logos would be an interesting experiment.
Metaforecast is a new search tool that aggregates various forecasts about the future, as mooted and evaluated on forecasting platforms…
we track ~2100 active forecasting questions, ~1200 (~55%) of which are on Metaculus. There are also 17,000 public models from Guesstimate.
As such Metaforecast can’t do what would be really useful. To track media pundits and university press releases, pinpoint and summarise their various claims about the future, and then over time tell us who is the New Paul Erlich and who the New Arthur C. Clarke.
Georgian Group Journal (18th century)
Open Military Studies (Military History)
Nordeuropa Forum (Nordic Studies)
Acta Archaeologica Carpathica (Carpathian mountains and region)
Folia Quaternaria (Polish journal of Quaternary Paleogeography)
OBOE Journal (Art Studies, “Journal On Biennials and Other Exhibitions”)
Litinfinite (in English and Bengali)
Incontri: Rivista Europea di studi Italiani (Italian history, some articles in English)
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis : Folia Litteraria Rossica (Russian literature)
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis : Folia Germanica (German literature)
African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies (University of Durban, South Africa)
Biodiversity Observations (South Africa)
Citrus Research & Technology (Brazil)
Open Books (University of Cape Town)
BodoArXiv (Medieval Studies preprints)
A Medieval Studies preprint server. Who knew?
A useful new analysis today from COAR, “Don’t believe the hype: repositories are critical for ensuring equity, inclusion and sustainability in the transition to open access”. Recent…
publishers’ comments portray gold open access as the only ‘legitimate’ route for open access, and attempt to diminish the repository (or green) route.
According to the author, some publishers are even implying that repositories have no aggregators, or are not present in Google Search or in specialist search-engines such as Scholar and GRAFT. Laughably, they apparently suggest that poor over-worked researchers will instead…
need to search through individual repositories to find the articles.
The publishers are also said to be trying to stop all but a sub-set of elite repositories from being used for data deposit, via…
proposing to define the repository selection criteria for where their authors’ should deposit research data. These criteria, which are very narrowly conceived, threaten to exclude thousands of national and institutional repositories as options for deposit.
Again, this sounds like it is designed to make researchers feel it’s more convenient to publish their article + data via a big publisher.
There’s a useful and unique new UserScript. In search results, always redirect the links on Twitter hits to Nitter. Useful if you’re not a Twitter user, but may occasionally want to peek at a perhaps-useful Twitter hit in search.
If the main Nitter is being “rate limited” by Twitter, there’s another script that’s a Nitter Instance Switcher and offers a link to a random mirror site.
A full Instance (mirror) list is here at GitHub, if you need to find a few fresh ones.