More info on Blogging Peer-reviewed Research Reporting

Last week, Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting announced a post-aggregation system for posts discussing peer-reviewed research only. They didn’t give any details of exactly how the aggregation system would work, so I bugged the people behind it via email.

Dave Munger is in charge of the project, but Zachary Tong is the one in charge of developing the aggregation system itself. Here’s the email I received from Zachary (reprinted with permission):

  • Bloggers register for an account at BPR3.
  • We require bloggers to include a small snippet of code in every post that should be indexed by BPR3. This snippet of code contains the citation data for the journal in question and uses the open COinS format (I noticed on your blog that you are familiar with it, so I’ll spare an explanation).
  • As a tool to the blogger, we provide a “citation generator” that can be used to create the required COinS tag as well as include the icon or plaintext citation (if desired).
  • The indexer at BPR3 routinely checks the RSS feeds of registered blogs. When the indexer notices a new post, the permalink is loaded and scanned for a COinS tag. If the COinS tag is found, it is parsed into the database and displayed on the frontpage of BPR3 (assuming the blog in question has been activated by a moderator).

As I’m sure you’re aware, the use of the COinS format allows multiple vendors and systems to make use of the citation data, as well as providing a fully developed format for our use. No need to reinvent the wheel 🙂

It also allows blogs to invisibly include citation data (and be indexed by BPR3) without displaying the icon, which some people have expressed interest in.

Note that the thing which causes a post to be added to the aggregation system is the presence of COinS metadata, not the icon, as you might assume from all the talk at about adding the icon to posts. The icon is simply a way of advertising the project and indicating to the reader that the post is part of’s system.

This mostly addressed the concerns I had, and I’m glad to see that the developers have an understanding of current metadata-based approaches for identifying citations in a web page. Without metadata, their system wouldn’t have any advantage over a technorati search, but with the journal-specific metadata included, this data can be collected and reused in ways hard to predict at the moment. (Did the team predict this?) The use of RSS to detect new posts is also good, because it’s a well-established technology for identifying new content without consuming a lot of bandwidth. Another thing I was glad to see was that the developers understand the need for an easy-to-use metadata generator. Tagging systems, like those used by, Connotea, and WordPress are an example of a successful implementation of metadata, requiring little effort at the time of publishing and providing a substantial benefit for subsequent users of the system. It seems to me that achieving “effort parity” with linking to the abstract in pubmed is the critical thing needed for widespread adoption of’s system. Unfortunately, the prototype of the citation generator, which looks rather like the COinS generator provided by Worldcat, still calls for quite a bit of manual entry of citation information, as opposed to looking it up from the PMID or DOI, but I feel certain that this needed functionality will be coming in the finished product.

I think this is an exciting project and I will be following it closely.

About Mr. Gunn

Science, Scholarly Communication, and Mendeley

01. November 2007 by Mr. Gunn
Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 4 comments

Comments (4)

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *