Of course, it already exists, but I am just trying to give a name to what people are already doing: using the Google search engine to discover what is common usage for a particular word, spelling, or phrase. Or to check facts and their usage.

Take for example these leading sentences from the Google company description (Internet: 28th Oct. 2012, http://www.google.com/about/company/ ):

"Googles mission is to organize the worlds information and make it universally accessible and useful. Our company has packed a lot into a relatively young life. Since Google was founded in 1998, weve grown to serve hundreds of thousands of users and customers around the world."

The first sentence indicates a present and future quality. The second sentence indicates a past achievement. The third sentence understates the past achievement with the statement: "weve grown to serve hundreds of thousands of users". Google itself has recently reported more than 100,000,000 users (see http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google+-have-1 ).

In this way, we can use Google to show that Google is not using itself to update its information on users and customers (I count the latter as a subcategory of user).

All this is a distraction from my main point, that using Google to check the usage of words (and the usage of facts) is now common, and incredibly useful for pedantic editors. Try this example:

1, "second hand"
2. "second-hand"
3. "secondhand"

The exact results of search on each of these usages will vary from day to day, but overall, we can expect to get a good idea of what is common usage. I need this for a newsletter I am editing today. Here are the results:

1. About 168,000,000 results
2. ditto
3. About 81,400,000 results

In short, the idea is usually expressed as two separate words, with or without a hyphen.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to force Google to recognise the difference between a hyphen and a space in this example. A purpose-built Google Usage Machine is needed to allow very refined searches in relation to the search terms used, and the areas of Internet searched. The present Search Engine is being used for a purpose for which it was not intended.

If a purpose-built Google Usage Machine exists, or can be built, I would be very happy. And the authors being edited might also be happy. Even if the acronym is GUM, the Machine would help reduce friction in the process of writing and editing.

How many people might benefit from such a machine?

Potentially many millions, not just the " hundreds of thousands of users and customers" still claimed by Google.

I arrived in Oxford last night for a short visit, after a long journey from Japan.

Today I will give a talk to some archaeologists. If I have time, I'll go for a walk and try to photograph the front entrance of Oxford University Press. We passed by last night, and it looks very grand.

I'd like to make our network famous by association! :-)

Perhaps I can stuff our brochure through the front door, and hope that the cleaner does not throw it away.

Postscript: The next day the morning sun was brilliant; I could photograph the imposing entrance, and then tried to enter.

"No sir, you may not enter here" a watchful door guard announced, stepping forward with authority and a brisk step.

This was the staff entrance. A morning rush of staff was arriving on foot and by bicycle. Behind the gates, a courtyard led on to a huge complex of buildings. Another day of serious work was starting at this giant of world academic publishing. It is a giant physcially and in academic terms.

Feeling dwarfed, I walked on to enjoy other destinations.

On a fine day, Oxford is a great place for walking, and I would rather be out than in.

Hmmm... I wonder. There is definitely a vast amount of information circulating in the world, in different media, with different speeds. There are also many commentators.

Despite the general situation, the theme of research communication, or academic communication, seems to barely register in the cacophony of news and comment. It is hardly ever discussed in depth by research organisations, so why should the general public be concerned?

Whenever something unusual happens in the world, journalists often turn to an academic or other research specialist for some deeper insight into what is happening. Researchers are expected to know stuff, but how we know stuff is largely a mystery to most people in the world. The general public does not read our journals, and for many journals, there are not many academic readers either!

What exactly is happening to all the information we produce? There is some discussion going on about production and distribution... print vs online, subscription services vs free, open access. But what is happening to information when it reaches us? How much do we actually read? How does the quality of writing affect our intake? Our attention and understanding? What happens when poorly written research is studied by someone for whom the research language is a second language?

We experience not only information overload, but also information resistance. Consciously and unconsciously, we are selective in our reading. We have to be.

For teaching, for research, for writing, we have to sift through our information sources, including our own original observations and ideas, and somehow integrate it all into our own writings and presentations.

When all the ingredients are boiled down, there may not be much information in the mix after all.

Authors repeat themselves. Authors come to the same conclusions as other authors, by different routes. Each paper we read may actually add just a little new information to what is already known.

Putting new information in context and repeating information published elsewhere is necessary, but the balance is critical for good writing and happy reading.

Information that is repeated can also more easily be found... hence the republication of historic key papers in edited anthologies.

My conclusion is not that we are experiencing information overload. We are experiencing information clutter.

There is a world of difference between a well-selected anthology of great papers, and journal full of 'new' papers that are padded with information from other sources, and lacking in original content.

My hope is that the Research Cooperative will help improve the information:clutter ratio in publishing.

That way, we can help maintain the role of research as a source of new information and understanding in society generally.

For many issues of concern to society, information is sorely lacking!

Our goal is to help reduce clutter, and improve the quality of information that we provide, for each other (as members of diverse research communities), and for the world at large.

After watching another Sherlock Holmes episode with my 15 year old son, I am experiencing the Irene Adler Affect once again: That tantalising, tender feeling of almost...

Hmmm.

A dictionary definition of the term 'affect' as a psychological term is suitable here: 'a feeling, emotion, or desire, esp. leading to action'.

What is it that leads us to action as scientists? Not always, or perhaps even rarely, some kind of logical chain of argument. We are ultimately motivated by personal feelings, unless we happen to be robotic automatons.

Of course, we all have different feelings, and reasons. But the Irene Adler Affect for Sherlock Holmes is the attraction of a mystery and trail of clues that lead to a resolution that is never complete, that inevitably leads to further mystery, and a new trail.

She is forever unreachable, setting up a trail of clues and answers that are forever tantalising to him, no matter how close he comes to her.

As scientists, we cannot live in a fictional world and recast ourselves in different centuries in order to pursue our scientific curiosity. We have to accept that the unattainable Irene Adler will outlive us.

All we can do is add questions and answers to a tangled trail of clues, and hope that others will pick up something we left for them in a year, or ten years, or in a hundred years.

When I write a research paper, no matter how obscure the topic and the publication, I like to think that someone might find something new to follow even if they pick up the trail one hundred years later.

Perhaps to be immortal, as scientists, we have to be both Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler at the same time. In the movie fiction, the two characters do almost seem to be different faces of one person.

Unfortunately, we have to be our own scriptwriters as well. No matter how exciting the work seems to us, unless we are also great writers, the work may not seem so very exciting to others.

Not to worry. Even a deadpan and dry manuscript that has no obvious importance or historical significance can emerge as the veiled clue that tantalises and tempts others, later.

It is better to to do great research without fanfare than poor research with great fanfare.

With time, great research will eventually be recognised, if we all make an effort to see the greatness in others.

Irene A. has given us a clue, and is waiting.

As a few members have pointed out, our network has attracted a variety of untrustworthy journals and publishers.

This is a real problem.

I should try to protect our members by not supporting such businesses, and should avoid having our network seen as guilty by association.

This morning I spent a few hours checking the websites and contact links of various journals and publishers, and have eliminated the support pages for several. I have also suspended a number of anonymous members associated with the publishers and journals concerned. Since the members choose to be anonymous, or choose to represent an anonymous organisation, I have not informed them about my decision. From an internet security point of view, it is better not to communicate with them at all.

I have become quite ruthless about suspending or deleting material produced by or on behalf of anonymously edited and managed journals and publishers.

I have also upgraded the criteria for accepting journals and publisher in my comments on:

Journals of no repute, and journal traps.

I strongly recommend reading these comments if you are tempted to submit work to an online journal you are not familiar with!

I have just returned to Osaka from Fukuoka City in Kyushu, where I attended the 5th World Conference of the Society for East Asian Archaeology (SEAA5). For my own academic reasons, the conference was very interesting.

The conference organisers also kindly allowed me to display our Co-op flier on a desk outside the conference lunchroom, so that I could introduce the network toparticipants passing in and out.

Many participants did take our flier, and if you happen to be one of them, and are reading this message, please do join our network!

For many reasons, there is a huge need for effective communication of archaeology across language barriers, and also within each society and language community.

At the Conference, one of our opening speakers emphasized this with a story from Japan, where archaeologists had discovered evidence of a past mega-tsunami in northern Japan, several hundred years ago. Unfortunately, the implications of this discovery were not effectively transmitted to policy makers, companies, and the general public, before the Tohoku disaster (earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power-plant meltdowns) in March 2011.

Here at the Research Cooperative we wish to support new journals and publishers that are genuinely able to support research communication by authors, research institutions, and academic associations .

This must include journals of no repute, since new journals by definition have not had time to develop a reputation, good or bad.

We therefore need ways to weed out scam or near-scam journals that have been created in order to trap authors and collect author fees.... another term for this is 'predatory publishing' (see the Scholarly Open Access blog on this subject).

Even if a journal is being produced in good faith, authors have a right to know exactly who is publishing their work, and how, and why .

Every author should seek such information before choosing a publisher and publication. It is naturally difficult for new journals to build their reputation, and to gain sufficient support to gain long term stability.

Whenever a new journal is started, there is always a risk that it will fail soon (within months or a few years), and the authors' work will be lost or no longer easy to find.

Accepting such risk is reasonable if:

- we want to support the journal with our contributions,

- the journal or publisher is making sincere efforts for good reasons, and

- a secure repository exists for the issues published, so that they can be found even if the journal ceases to be published and the journal website is closed.

We do not support publishers and journals that are managed anonymously. We may choose to delete anonymous or suspicious requests for the attention of our members and authors, without notification.

The owners of such journals are clearly unwilling to take responsibility for long term management of the journals. There is no reason for authors to trust them, even if the owners have a sincere wish to help others.

Full or substantial transparency in the operation of a publisher or journal is the primary requirement for support from our network.

We do have further criteria for acceptance or rejection. Each case will be judged according to a range of criteria. Further criteria are indicated below.

Negative attributes of a publisher or journal

1. The journal claims an international or high reputation despite being no more than, say one or two or three years old.

2. The journal description uses a template text that can be easily found on many other new journals, is not original in any way, and is not cogent.

3. No specific historical background is given, indicating why the journal was created, by the particular people or organisations involved in creating it.

4. The chief editor or secretary are not identified by name and address, or details cannot be verified by more than one means, or consist only of links to profiles set up on free social networks.

5. Contact details are similarly insufficient for editorial board members.

6. Supporting organisations or institutions are not identified with details that can be verified by more than one means, or the details consist only of links to profiles set up on free social networks or directory sites.

7. All important email addresses (editors, board members, info, journal contact address, fee recipients etc.) end in non-institutional suffixes (e.g. gmail.com and yahoo.com), or end in suffixes belonging to the domain of the publisher or journal.

8. Journal details cannot be found in reputable journal databases and monitoring services such as Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) , ScienceDirect , FirstSearch at OCLC.org , WorldCat.org , or SCImago Journal & Country Rank . (NB In the WorldCat search system, the 8 digit ISSN number must be entered with a hyphen in the middle).

9. Journal and publisher details are mainly or only found in databases or directories that have no good reputation, accept all submissions, or are not focused on academic or educational publications.

If a journal cannot be found using an ISSN number reported on the journal website, then this is immediately a cause for concern, since the cost to register a journal is not high, and the process is quick (from my own experience with a museum serial based in Japan). Journals can help themselves by linking their website to the search field of a reliable ISSN search service.

10. Authors are asked to submit and commit an accepted paper (e.g. by signing a copyright statement) to the journal before knowing who or what will be receiving any payment needed for processing or distribution.

11. The copyright statement is effective immediately, from the date of signing, rather than being effective only if and after the article has been published. Authors should be able to withdraw a publication at any time before an actual publication deadline, if they have a good reason to, without the publisher being able to claim ownership of copyright of the unpublished paper.

12. The copyright policy of the publication or publisher is not explained in a public statement, or will not be explained to the author until after the paper has been accepted or published.

13. The journal or publisher asks authors to transfer all possible copyrights and use-rights to the journal or publisher, including for example: copying for educational purposes, translation rights, archiving rights, and other rights and uses that authors might like to keep or at least negotiate; a journal can benefit from favourable (and free!) publicity if authors and readers are free to copy and transmit articles for research and educational purposes, so a tight copyright policy also suggests a short-sight journal management.

14. The journal title is badly designed and does not correspond to the journal aims described elsewhere in the journal description or website. For example, the title may contain redundant terms, or indicate a theme that is either much more narrow or much broader than that described in a full explication of the journal aims.

15. Journal operating costs or funding sources or supporting organisation(s) are not explained in any concrete terms, and there is no way to access a public record of the accounts of the journal or the publisher

Note: for truly global academic publishers that are listed public companies, and for many public research organisations, we can at least expect to see some public record in the form of annual reports, even if these do not refer to specific journals (privately held companies are usually not legally required to reveal a public record, though it may be to their advantage to do so).

16. Although the journal is evidently based in a country with low income levels (e.g. as indicated by the composition of the editorial board), author fees are high relative to income levels in that country, and are not expressed in the currency of that country.

17. The journal, journal editor, or journal publisher have no discoverable reputation. Of course, this is unfair for new journals and new publishers, but newcomers to academic publishing must accept that it takes time to build up a publication from nothing. Reputation is where much of the value of any publication resides, especially in the academic world. It can be established with personal and local networks, a small-scale publication well-made, and then gradually expand.

18. The website of the publisher or journal has no 'Terms of Service' (TOC) statement, or similar statement, or the TOC link does not work.

19. The website of the publisher or journal has no 'Support' page or link, or the 'Support' link does not work.

20. The website of the publisher or journal has no 'Privacy' statement or link, or the 'Privacy' link does not work.

Suggestions for other criteria are welcome (please comment below, or contact me with a private message)

I, for one, would like to see journals offer forums where readers, authors, and journal editors can all meet and discuss any aspect of a journal's operation - i.e. an open feedback loop, with appropriate moderation.

These are serious matters. We do need help from Co-op members in order to avoid introducing false or misleading information into our network. (Contact the author of this message if you can help).

See also this comment: Know a good journal when you see it!

Further resources:

Scholarly Open Access (Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing)

Update (3rd April 2017): the above privately maintained site became an established go-to reference but ceased operation abruptly in 2016. Please see the Internet Archive and other sources for information about the site and the efforts of Jeffrey Beall, the site author.

Bikas blog (comments on computer science journals, and criteria for verifying them)

Brian Martin (scientific fraud and the power structure of science)

Fake Journals Team (no updates since 2011; link deactivated here 3rd April 2017)

New members often ask me to explain the objectives and activities of the Research Cooperative.

These may not be obvious because for a first-time visitor, the top page and other pages look very busy, and seem to cover many different subjects.

In fact everything that has been provided here (group pages, notes, forums, etc.) has been provided in order to help people find other people with shared interests. And in particular, shared interests in getting research published.

The Research Cooperative was established in 2001 as an international, not-for-profit organisation (NPO).

Our mission is to support academic, scientific, technical, and popular research communication in all subjects, languages, and media.

The main objectives of our network are to help research writers find editors and translators, and to help publishers find copy-editors and reviewers. Editing companies can also use our network to offer services, or to recruit new editors.

There are many other related objectives, but these are the core practical objectives.

Our activities are almost entirely online , and the network is mostly financed from my own pocket money. There is no physical institution. I do have printed brochures that have been sent to a few people and institutions, and that I distribute at conferences. I can send these to other members who are willing to help distribute the brochures.

Please explore our network, and ask me questions at any time (e.g. with comment on this blog). See also our Documentation.

Thanks.

ps

Here are some fruit that have been picked. Many more fruit can be picked on the tree of our social network. You have to look for them though. Please enjoy!