Just discovered JF.
The possibility of searching existing groups is missing.
I found this one clicking randomly on one of the suggested people and
seeing which group they belonged...which is not exactly the way I would like to find things.

I am would like to find groups interested in:
rainfall
ecology
science in general

All the best to JF users,
Massi

Hi,

I have been looking for something like JournalFire for a while and am very pleased to have just joined. Do you have any tips for getting me started?

I would like to find groups interested in:
Fluid Mechanics,
Physical Limnology,
gravity currents,
intrusion currents,
general science discussion too.

Thanks,
Charlie

Along the lines of Zane's suggestion, it would be nice to have a way to connect articles together and to get article recommendations (if you like x, then you might like y) I'm going to present a journal club on a highly debated hypothesis, and I'd like to link together a handful of papers that support and contest the idea. Right now I guess I will just add them all to an event in my lab's journal club unless someone has a better suggestion...

We need a better way to find pre-existing groups/discussions on a given topic, or at a given institution.

I found a bug in search function in j-fire.

For example, when you type
"Adolphs[au] & Tsuchiya[au]" or "adolphs & tsuchiya", it pulls all the papers that I'm not in the author list.
There should be only 2 papers (2nd and 3rd entry).

What kind of search algorithm j-fire is using?

As a request, can we search the paper using 'google scholar' like feature? I like google scholar because it can search not only journal papers but also chapters in edited books or books themselves. The one I particularly wanted to input to j-fire is Nowak & Bullier 1997 Cerebral Cortex (book), which cannot be searched with the current feature.

Thanks

I certainly think two changes should be made to the rating:

1. the rating we have now should be kind of a "higher standard" (review like), which one should only use if one feels one can judge the paper on significance etc. -> and it should be possible to rate only one or two of those if one, for example, is not able to judge the methods of the paper. This rating should also try to be an "objective" measure on that paper - independent of ones one interests etc...

2. the second rating category should be rather based on a quick impression - and this should/could fully reflect one's own interest in the subject. It could be used then to later cluster people with similar interests / suggest papers that might be of interest etc ... read more

hi John,

I was just doing some pubmed search on journal fire - the nice thing is I can just move the potentially interesting papers into my "private journal club".

Nevertheless, there are a few things that could be better to do that:
1. it only gives the latest 20 pubmed results, but not all -> I realize this might have to do with the download capabilities -> but may be you could make it (at least optional) so one could see all of those! Often you not searching for a single paper, rather screening a whole list
(2. in this general respect: pubmed itself should be not better in any way than journalfire - so one could only use journal fire)
3. Is there a way to put below the articles directly: "move to ... read more

John:

Gilles is telling me that you are planning to present journalfire to the Caltech community sometime in September. This is a great idea. Please do advertise on cns-interest.

My impression of journalfire is that it is trying to carry out a similar mission as the movie comments you find in imdb.com

It would be important to sort out all the ways in which it could be used:

- journal club within a research group or a local community
- journal club in a distributed community
- helping me find the best paper on a certain topic
- helping authors respond to common misconceptions about their papers
- helping scientific communities to quickly pinpoint problems with papers
- helping sync ... read more