In the comments to this recent post, Pedro Beltao points out his recent post - Opening up the scientific process - which I would suggest you read.
First reaction will probably be - ah, how idealistic! But it will make you think, I believe. Many elements are already happening, e.g., open-source journals, open comments on online journal articles, as well as blogs and wikis that report research in real time, e.g., Useful Chem Experiments, RRResearch and UsefulChem Wiki.
The world of academic science is slow-moving and resistant to change, but it is already changing nonetheless. And, as each element of Pedro's model slowly changes, the system as a whole is bound to change, perhaps beyond recognition. If publishing is a public business, the way authority is gained in the field will change. Instead of counting a number of Science/Nature papers, serach committees will be able to take a much deeper look at any individiual's work and thought. While science will remain intensely competitive, the field where competition occurs will move away from big journals, citation indices and into the public sphere online. Then, teh business of science will stop being "production of manuscrupts" and become, yet again in history, "production of knowledge".
So, while it will take time, effort and adjusting (and fixing the unforseeable side-effects), and perhaps a change of generation (or two), I do not this that something like this or this or what Pedro is describing is unrealistic.
Comments
Instead of counting a number of Science/Nature papers, serach committees will be able to take a much deeper look at any individiual's work and thought.
They will be able to... but will they? Counting journal articles and citations is so fast and easy. Search committees tend to be faculty members who are tremendously busy anyway.
When it comes to administrations, there's always going to be something of a bean counter mentality, and counting publications and citations very much appeals to that mentality.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | August 7, 2006 2:11 PM
Give it a generation or two. the search committees will be made up of people who have grown up within an open science process and will be used to evaluating people online and will ba elrady familiar with the work of most candidates and checking Science/Nature references is not going to cross their minds. They will not think the way current search committees think.
Posted by: coturnix | August 7, 2006 2:15 PM
Yeah, but in a generation or two will science be funded the way it has been for the last 60 years? It seems to me like given the "wars against science" by partisans of various ilks that the whole academic structure of research science might get some huge blows that may topple it. I see people on scienceblogs moaning about flat research moneys for research, what happens when there are 20% or 50% cuts, and much of the rest is entangled with development pressures from industry? I read about physicists (my interest) and others flying around the world a couple times a year and I laugh - this is like the corporate world in the early 90's before most travel (more than 60% at one Fortune top 10) was rationalized away. The way forward you are pointing out may be the only way, along with remote collaboration.
Posted by: Markk | August 7, 2006 2:34 PM
Might want to plug OpenWetWare while you're at it... It's Wiki and it's wicked cool (in the useful sense):
http://openwetware.org/wiki/Main_Page
Posted by: iGollum | August 7, 2006 6:38 PM
Thanks for the link to RRResearch - that is some good stuff!
Posted by: Jean-Claude Bradley | August 8, 2006 8:46 AM
Great links! Thanks.
Posted by: Erin Monahan | August 13, 2006 6:47 PM