Computer Science Conference Statistics

The LiquidPub project has compiled statistics about citations, acceptance rates and diversity measures for Computer Science conferences based on the CiteSeer database and other sources. A summary of these statistics can be found at: and comments are welcome…


Interdiscplinary Workshop on Trust and Reputation

The LiquidPub teams invites you to join our online-workshop on trust and reputation!

You can find all information here: Please take part in discussing the abstracts and help them grow into full papers by making fruiful comments. (PS. It is a moderated discussion. Once you post something, the moderators of the conference will be notified of your comment and can make it visible).

There will also be a live event in Paris on the 14-15.12.2010. You can find the schedule for the programme here: ScheduleTrust-Workshop Paris

Reputation survey

The LiquidPub project is conducting a study aimed at comparing the perceived impact of computer science researchers with bibliometric indicators and other metrics of impact. Response will be treated confidentially and results of the survey will NOT be released publicly, not even within the project. The goal of the survey is simply to determine which scientific metrics are more highly correlated with scientists’ opinions. This result will instead be made publicly available.


The list of researchers included in the survey is a random sampling of a longer list of researchers with high h-index maintained by Jens Palsberg at UCLA.


The survey has been conducted before in other more controlled environments such as BPM and ICWE conferences, and now is becoming public to compare our previous results with those stemming from a much wider audience.

Please, help us by taking the survey at:


Workshop: The Influence and Impact of Web 2.0 on Various Applications

Last week I attended the workshop on The Influence and Impact of Web 2.0 on Various Applications. It was organized by Mark Baker from It was an extremely interesting and productive workshop, below I will try to summarize some parallels between presentations and LiquidPub.

Duncan Hull presented Bibliography 2.0 – experience of Wellcome Trust Genome Campus in using CiteULike. The scenario was similar to the selection phase in Liquid Journals – people tag articles they somehow found on the Internet and then most tagged articles are sent out in a weekly digest. There was a set of tags people agreed on beforehand (which seem to correspond to several Liquid Journals or issues in our scenario). The results provided me with some insights on what we can see from selection behavior – typical long tail distribution.  Also, it was not clear how to evaluate quality of selection (e.g. whether people appreciate more papers from the guy who bookmarked 500 papers or from the guy who bookmarked “only” 150, but more interesting ones?). It might be possible to add hash in links so that we can see which links were actually followed by the users (RIN does something similar in their newsletters).

What Liquid Journals could add in Bibliography 2.0 scenario? Automatic gathering of content from Internet sources (publishers’ websites, Google scholar, etc.), privacy settings (share only with me, my friends, friends of friends, whole network), getting not only papers (but also blogs, datasets, scientific workflows). Also, from the scenario we can defines some “desirable” features for LJ – tell whenever [the right] Mark Baker published a paper, new paper matches your keyword alert (those two, apart from “the right” part, are already implemented by Scholar), and, going further, may be about new papers appearing in a certain community.

Roy Williams presented application of Web 2.0 for providing streams of news about astronomical events (appeareances of super nova, asteroids coming too close to the Earth, etc.). Even though the domain is completely different, their workflow of identifying “interesting” events looks extremely similar to the workflow of identifying “interesting” scientific contributions.

David de Roure presented MyExperiment, a virtual research environment for sharing scientific workflows (description of how you conduct an experiment). The presentation confirmed what I knew before the workshop – a scientific workflow could be one of contributions in LiquidJournals. MyExperiment lists more than 1000 workflows and also has a programmatic access via REST API, so they should be easy to crawl. Also, the notion of Research Object is extremely similar to the concept of SKO in LiquidPub. Possible future uses of such concept that were mentioned:
– can I have a copy of your research object?
– what can I do with your research object?
are similar to the questions we have when talking about licensing and copyright, in particular in Liquid Books.

If you want to know more about the workshop, presentations and videos will be available at the workshop website. You can also see the tweets of participants or Andy Turner’s blog, nicely summarizing all discussions.

P.S. And my presentation on Liquid Journals is available here.

ResEval redesign

In the nearest future we’ll offer to public the redesigned version of ResEval tool. We came to a couple of drastic changes and are happy to announce them for discussion in this post.

The mock-up of the new Reseval’s interface is here: main page, about page.

Here are the comments:

  1. ResEval won’t look like the search engine now. It will become the extensive and customizable researcher’s profile.
  2. There are generally two types of information in this researcher’s profile: first are indexes and publications (which you see on the mock-up right now), and second – the success dynamics for the period of time in charts. Charts will be shown in a different inset like in this MockingBird mock-up.
  3. Indexes computation customization will work in place. This is much more efficient to the user to “play” with the options being inside of the default profile, rather than go to the separate page for each specific query. This especially applies for the novice users, because the current logic is not obvious.When we customize the indexes behind them we’ll see the deviation from the default value (just like in Google Finance with red and green arrows :)).
  4. Researcher’s profile will become customizable! You as it’s owner will be able to log into Reseval and edit the list of publications inside of it possibly adding those not listed and subtracting those that are not your’s.
  5. When you update the researcher’s profile from some source (for example, Google Scholar), it usually takes pretty much time. As it’s not possible to make it quicker, we’ll show the updating status and will update the page when it’s ready. You’ll just come back to it and see the result without the need to manually update it like now.
  6. Link will lead to the tool itself. “About”, “FAQ” etc. pages will work as sub pages.

We’ll be happy to get your comments on the redesign even at this early iteration. Be ready for more changes and join the discussion 🙂

Brainshop on Web and Collaborative Technologies for Higher Education (ICE2010)

Brainshop on Web and Collaborative Technologies for Higher Education (ICE2010)

Vienna, July 5th, 2010
In Conjunction with ICWE 2010

The goal of this brainshop is to create a community of people interested in harnessing the power of the web, to be able to provide collaborative technologies that foster new ways of Learning and Teaching. Our motivation is to improve education in a sustainable manner, both in technologically advanced countries as well as in developing countries. Participants interested in contributing to this event should be those that are passionate about providing (or helping to provide) high quality education and that are interested in exploring how web-collaboration technologies can assist in matters such as: preparation of class material and its execution, student collaboration in projects, tools supporting education and the creation and management of educational communities.

We envision this as an opportunity to gather and discuss about stories of success and failure, about ideas and possibilities; to build together a vision and define a plan towards its completion.
More precisely, the desired output of the event is to have:

– A consolidated document that describes what we feel is missing in this space, which are the problems we need to solve and technologies we need to develop in the short and medium term
– A concrete set of steps for how we may address these problems
– A set of consortia for coordinated submissions to european or NSF projects (or from other funding sources)

The event will have no formal proceedings. Results will be collected and published at the icebar web page. Furthermore, a summary of the results and vision will be published in the ICWE workshop proceedings.
Read the rest of this entry »

ORCID – Open Researcher and Contributor ID

Today I participated in ORCID meeting, where the current progress of the initiative and further steps have been discussed. ORCID represents a community effort to establish an open, independent registry that is adopted and embraced as the industry’s de facto standard. Their mission is to resolve the systemic name ambiguity, by means of assigning unique identifiers linkable to an individual’s research output, to enhance the scientific discovery process and improve the efficiency of funding and collaboration (from

ORCID seems to be very related to LiquidPub, because they deal with research profiles, i.e. info about name, affiliation, role at primary institution, homepage, publication record, areas of expertise, collaborators, projects, awards, etc. of a researcher. Some features (e.g. selecting publications of a researcher for the individual’s publication record) sounded extremely familiar, since they were also planned in LiquidPub, and in particular, in our collaboration with ICST. Also, the IDs of researchers used for micro-credit attribution (not only for recognizing authorship in a paper, but also for a Wikipedia entry, or for a blogpost) can be a great help for defining novel metrics in ResEval tool, developed by LiquidPub.

A funny thing is that the discussion about board membership (whether it should be individual or institutional) was the longest, while there were almost no comments on technical issues (real work?:)).

The first prototype is going to be ready for this summer, and we might test the public API in LiquidPub.
If you are looking for more info – it is on ORCID private wiki (you should request the membership at Alternatively, this paper provides a nice high-level overview: Credit where credit is due .