Why are so many scientists reluctant to make full use of Web 2.0 applications, social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and commenting capabilities on some online journals?
Michael Nielsen wrote a very thoughtful essay exploring this question which I hope you read carefully and post comments.
Michael is really talking about two things - one is pre-publication process, i.e., how to get scientists to find each other and collaborate by using the Web, and the other is the post-publication process, i.e., how to get scientists to make their thoughts and discussions about published works more public.
Those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I am thinking along some very similar lines. If you combine, for instance, my review of Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge with
On my last scientific paper, I was both a stunt-man and the make-up artist with Journal Clubs - think of the future! with The Scientific Paper: past, present and probable future, you will see a similar thread of thinking.
But, what do you think?
Education & Careers
Technology
Comments
Because scientists don't spend professional time and effort on shit that they don't get credit for.
Posted by: PhysioProf | July 18, 2008 8:11 AM
@PP: Exactly!
So what incentives could one provide to make smart comments?
At least on PLoS One, the user profiles could list the number of papers authored / reviewed / handled as editor, comments, ratings, etc. Wouldn't that provide an incentive to build a reputation? Or would that just be seen as a waste of time which should rather be spent doing experiments and writing papers? Is the perfect scientist the one who does nothing but writes papers and does experiments?
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | July 18, 2008 10:26 AM
This won't mean jack diddly shit unless hiring, promotion, and tenure committees, as well as grant peer review panels, begin to consider such activities as part of a scientists "productivity".
Posted by: PhysioProf | July 20, 2008 11:50 AM