ScienceBloggers discuss the advantages of open science and debate the necessity of the current peer-review system.
Nice! But of course I'd say that. Just to emphasize, in case the article does not make it clear enough, Open Access and changes in peer-review will both be a result of the Age of the Web, but the two are not necessarily tied to each other in each individual instance of a publishing venue. Different journals, pre-print sites, etc., are experimenting with OA and with changes in peer-review in different ways and at different rates, the two processes being independent from each other at this stage in history.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It's been a while since I came back from Boston, but the big dinosaur story kept me busy all last week so I never managed to find time and energy to write my own recap of the Harvard Conference.
Anna Kushnir, Corie Lok, Evie Brown, Kaitlin Thaney (Part 2 and Part 3) and
Alex Palazzo have written…
I know that you know that I work for PLoS. So, I know that a lot of you are waiting for me to respond, in some way, to the hatchet-job article by Declan Bucler published in Nature yesterday. Yes, Nature and PLoS are competitors in some sense of the word (though most individual people employed by…
Predatory open access journals seem to be a hot topic these days. In fact, there seems to be kind of a moral panic surrounding them. I would like to counter the admittedly shocking and scary stories around that moral panic by pointing out that perhaps we shouldn't be worrying so much about a fairly…
Jake Young has written an excellent summary of a panel discussion he attended at the Society for Neuroscience meeting.
I encourage you to read the whole thing, as it presents a fascinating interplay of the forces at work in academic publishing. But if Jake's synopsis is too much for you, here's a…