Hello, I don't ”review papers”. I try to read as much as possible and then share papers that I think are adding something interesting to the literature. I need to rank them somehow, to stay within the length of a post, so it's an average of 8-10 papers per post (surviving a 2-3 weeks of accumulated knowledge).
Compatibly with institutional duties, there are periods where I can screen up to 3-4 papers per day (and I have a long reading pipeline... that will never finish). There are periods where I mostly focus on one topic, and periods where I cover a broader spectrum of topics.
To answer your question more quantitatively, say that 8-10 papers make it out of about 30-40.
Since I am not a journal or a magazine, these numbers have no meaning: I share what I think it's useful for my understanding of complex systems, that does not necessarily correlate with the impact factor of journals publishing those papers, the prestige of their authors, etc etc.
Congratulations!
Could you tell me: What fraction of (relevant) new papers you think you manage to review and, of those, which fraction makes to the newsletter?
Hello, I don't ”review papers”. I try to read as much as possible and then share papers that I think are adding something interesting to the literature. I need to rank them somehow, to stay within the length of a post, so it's an average of 8-10 papers per post (surviving a 2-3 weeks of accumulated knowledge).
Compatibly with institutional duties, there are periods where I can screen up to 3-4 papers per day (and I have a long reading pipeline... that will never finish). There are periods where I mostly focus on one topic, and periods where I cover a broader spectrum of topics.
To answer your question more quantitatively, say that 8-10 papers make it out of about 30-40.
Since I am not a journal or a magazine, these numbers have no meaning: I share what I think it's useful for my understanding of complex systems, that does not necessarily correlate with the impact factor of journals publishing those papers, the prestige of their authors, etc etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
"Review" was a poor word choice, it was not meant in a strict/publishing sense, but rather as "screen", or "read and evaluate", as you described.
Anyway it's good to have an idea of the amount of work readers save by following your substack. :)
Congrats!
Thanks JG!