The DLESE Community Review System: Gathering, Aggregating, and Disseminating User Feedback about the Effectiveness of Web-based Educational Resources

NOTE: This is a large file, 8 mb in size! The Community Review System (CRS) of the Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE) is intended to help educators seeking high-quality digital resources and resource creators who are seeking recognition for their resources. This article describes how CRS gathers web-based feedback from educators and learners who have used DLESE educational resources, plus specialist reviews by science and pedagogy experts. This information is used to identify exemplary resources to be showcased in the DLESE Reviewed Collection. Detailed, but anonymous, feedback is provided to the resource creator to encourage improvement of the resource. Educational levels: Graduate or professional, Graduate or professional

Eigenvector localization as a tool to study small communities in online social networks

We present and discuss a mathematical procedure for identification of small "communities" or segments within large bipartite networks. The procedure is based on spectral analysis of the matrix encoding network structure. The principal tool here is localization of eigenvectors of the matrix, by means of which the relevant network segments become visible. We exemplified our approach by analyzing the data related to product reviewing on Amazon.com. We found several segments, a kind of hybrid communities of densely interlinked reviewers and products, which we were able to meaningfully interpret in terms of the type and thematic categorization of reviewed items. The method provides a complementary approach to other ways of community detection, typically aiming at identification of large network modules

Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals

My review of empirical research on scientific publication led to the following conclusions. Three criteria are useful for identifying whether findings are important: replication, validity, and usefulness. A fourth criterion, surprise, applies in some situations. Based on these criteria, important findings resulting from academic research in marketing seem to be rare. To a large extent, this rarity is due to a reward system that is built around subjective peer review. Rather than using peer review as a secret screening process, using an open process likely will improve papers and inform readers. Researchers, journals, business schools, funding agencies, and professional organizations can all contribute to improving the process. For example, researchers should do directed research on papers that contribute to principles. Journals should invite papers that contribute to principles. Business school administrators should reward researchers who make important findings. Funding agencies should base decisions on researchers' prior success in making important findings, and professional organizations should maintain web sites that describe what is known about principles and what research is needed on principles