For those who get all their science news from the mainstream media (esp BBC)
here is a meta analysis of interweb science reporting and a follow-up blog
explaining some of the weirdness and lacks of current BBC webstories. Don't miss out on the meta comments too.
Comments 11
ROFL!
Reply
Reply
The only thing which matters is peer review. Universities could quite easily organise a system for that if they put their minds to it.
Indeed, this could actually speed up research in some fields. Back when I was doing my DPhil I submitted precisely zero papers for publication mainly because I knew perfectly well that the major journals' idea of who suitable reviewers would be would make it almost impossible to get anything printed. Starting off with "my reviewers are all full of sh*t and their results are either faked or irrelevant" isn't a winning formula!
Reply
As an intermediate step, this finding comparing the usage of open-access publication across various scientific disciplines is quite interesting. Many open-access publications are peer-reviewed, although I don't know how that's organized or funded.
Reply
I don't know how that's organized or funded
According to that Wikipedia article, making electronic versions free after a delay seems quite popular. This is a good way to do it, since a serious research establishment won't mind paying for up-to-date information whilst the benefits of open access are not lost by introducing a delay.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment