Nature Goes Wiki

From the WSJ:

Nature, one of the world's most prestigious scientific research journals, has embarked on an experiment of its own.

In addition to having articles submitted for publication subjected to peer reviews by a handful of experts in the field, the 136-year-old journal is trying out a new system for authors who agree to participate: posting the paper online and inviting scientists in the field to submit comments praising -- or poking holes -- in it.

Lay readers can see the submitted articles as well, but the site says postings are only for scientists in the discipline, who must list their names and institutional email addresses. Nature says its editors screen out those they find irrelevant, intemperate or otherwise inappropriate.

Meanwhile, the papers also make their way through the journal's traditional peer-review gauntlet. Nature says it's taking both sets of comments into account when deciding whether to publish.

So far, there have been only 70 posts on the 62 papers that authors have decided to put on the Web site, according to Linda Miller, U.S. executive editor of Nature, published by a unit of Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

The experiment is an early sign of how the scientific publishing establishment is pushing the limits of its hallowed but opaque peer-review system. Critics of the traditional process say it lets not only low-quality papers, but also sometimes fraudulent ones, slip through the gates. The Nature trial of a Web-based system could usher the spirit of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia edited by its readers, from the margins of scientific publishing to the mainstream

See the science wiki for yourself...It seems to me that scientists might be reluctant to have their data made public before they get official credit for it. What's to prevent some shady scientist from reading a "public" but unpublished paper and plagiarizing the experiments?

Tags

More like this

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…
It is infuriating how stodgy biomedical sciences are in terms of information sharing. It's not clear how much of this is bred of inherent conservatism, the pressures of a very competitive field or just plain technobackwardness. But while mathematics and physics have had preprint servers for years,…
As you may or may not know, there's been some conflict in the scientific publishing industry over the last few years. Traditional business models have been challenged by an "open-access" model, where the papers are freely available to the general public. In the traditional model, the money comes…
John Bohannon of Science magazine has developed a fake science paper generator. He wrote a little, simple program, pushes a button, and gets hundreds of phony papers, each unique with different authors and different molecules and different cancers, in a format that's painfully familiar to anyone…

This has potential, but right now they're just using this to protect their journal from bad papers getting accepted by poor reviewers (a problem Nature hasn't really had, Science, on the other hand..). I'd like to see a system where the submitted papers are public, the commenter reviews are public, and other scientists are able to comment on both. I don't think I've ever received a review that didn't contain a major error due to poor reading comprehension or an incorrect citation. Perhaps if reviewers knew their reviews were going to be examined, they would do a better job..

By Crusty Dem (not verified) on 16 Sep 2006 #permalink