Journal club-like thing

Question

I am thinking if it is good to ask a poll question like "Interesting preprints of Jan 2012". IMHO it may be fruitful (personally I think that I miss a lot of good preprints for various reasons).

Pros:

• it's a natural extension of the idea of journal club upgraded to web2.0 (with all its benefits)

Cons:

• is a poll question
• the most interesting only for a number of months (?)

When it comes to details, I suggest the following:

• Community Wiki by default
• references should be followed by summary saying what is the result and (implicitly or explicitly) why it is important/interesting/insightful/...
  • simply copying&pasting abstract is not enough
  • critical remarks are welcome as well
• no self-advertisement
• timescale and topic scale are up to fine tuning

What is your opinion? (Both with respect to the general idea and its details).

EDIT:

As the meta-question got +6, I posted it as Papers and preprints worth reading, Jan-midFeb 2012.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Answer 1

Probably most people in this website enjoy journal-clubbing, so why not?

Yet the post title "papers and preprints worth reading" sounds a bit aggressive to me. Maybe we could replace it with something more neutral, since it is impossible to cite all the papers "worth-reading" that appear in a month, not to forget that our posting-format is a bit biased since the first answers to this kind of posts tend to absorb more attention.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Comments

When it comes to name - I am more than open (yeah, maybe _papers and preprints worth reading_ isn't the best title but I have nothing better in my mind).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

---

If there is enough interest on doing the journal club regularly we could give it a personal name related to the site e.g. Journal Exchange Club or something alike.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)