Or at least, the stage upon which she performs?
This comes from an interesting Guardian article on the old debate between open access publishing versus more traditional routes, but I like the idea of academics trying to become the “Britney of Science”.
Or is Science the Britney of Nature? ;-)
Yes, the Guardian article quote is “Britney of science” rather than “Britney of Science”. The person who is making that comment, and who is most extensively quoted, is an anthropologist, which is a field occasionally published by the three journals discussed at the start of the article, but definitely not core. I think the piece would have been rather different had the interview been with a cell biologist or neuroscientist, say.
I think I’d rather be the Patti LaBelle of science rather than the Britney of science. But see this
It is a bit off-topic for your post, Sara, so I had a bit of a rant about the Guardian piece in the citation forum.
Reading the Guardian piece attentively, it seemed to be an ill-informed, biased mish-mash.
(I’ve never heard of Patti LaBelle so I guess that makes me sad. I’ve only heard of Britney Spears because
she once featured in Natureone of my daughters once bought a CD by her, many years ago (pop-music year-units, that is).)You’ve never heard of Patti Labelle? Shame on you, that’s all I can say.
Patti LaBelle might be a good one for Christmas, Maxine, in case your daughters run out of ideas on what to get you as a present.
As to the Guardian article, first of all, to put Nature, Science etc as the only amplifiers of good science out there seems strange. And to rely on sites such as Digg to find papers in a field where you are the expert does not throw a good light on any scientists. They might be good to find stuff in areas outside your immediate expertise, but what your immediate colleagues and competitors are up to, I think most are aware of that, even if it is published in smaller journals.
As for Google Scholar, I think it is still a dormant princess. If you consider the fact that unlike Web of Science Scholar actually indexes ALL content from papers, not just abstracts, there is a huge potential in there. Only being able to search for keywords, and not being able to search for specific authors, institutions, journals in a straightforward manner is a disadvantage. And when I use Scholar I still don’t think the results it comes up with are really that great – and there is no way to sort the results or analyze them in the way WoS or Scopus allow it. There is a vast potential there, but even for Google this might not be worth going after in a more focussed effort?
PS: I hope the Guardian’s reporting on such issues gets better once they become our neighbours in a little while.
Google Scholar as dormant princess, I love that, Joerg!
You and Henry have spurred me to do a Google (non-Scholar) search for P laB, and I see she is “the epitome of a diva” and a “longtime soul songstress turned ambassador for the City of Brotherly Love.” If that city were Liverpool or Carlisle, I could buy her CD for my husband for Christmas, but I suspect it isn’t.
I think there are other flaws in the Guardian piece as well as those you identify, Joerg, but maybe it would be kinder to let the article RIP.
Ms. LaBelle has been belting out soul hits here in the western hemisphere since I was a youngster. She is now seen most frequently in US homes via her role as a spokesperson for a diabetic aid company, and whenever they want a really first class rendition of the national anthem before a sporting event. She is to Britney Spears what Pangea is to Lundy Isle.
She is to Britney Spears what Pangea is to Lundy Isle.
Very well put, James. Voulez-vous couchez avec moi? No, thought not.
Non, je resterai avec la dame que j’ai. And thank god for internet translators.
Always liked that song too – both the original and the remake.
Me too. It’s that catchy bassline. Always gets me.
This comes up as the first link in a Google search for “britney spears” “Nature network” (ScienceOnline09).
So, err, why were you googling those terms?
It was in the session about social networks for scientists. I think it was Anna who described Nature Network as kind of a Facebook with less Britney Spears, which prompted people to see whether there was any mention of Britney in these hallowed halls.
Ha! Try searching Scienceblogs.com for “Britney Spears”!!!! ;-)