In my previous post, I have talked about how I find it simply outrageous that serious scientific journals still treat the so called “supplementary information” as some kind of data dump, where no proper formatting is required and where noblesse does not oblige. This made me think about what other features of the current state of scientific publishing are lagging behind the available technology.
One of the distinguishing features of Web 2.0 is its interactive character. Back in the early days of Internet the websites were static and only rarely updated. Nowadays, however, the Web bustles with activity, with blogs, e-zines, discussion fora, and wikis changing their content on a daily, even hourly basis. It is the public that shapes the Web, not some chosen few. So why not adopt some of that democratic approach in scientific publishing?
(more…)
February 18, 2009 at 3:41 am
Molecular Philosophy 
Research paper 2.0 – Part 2 – Readers’ comments
In my previous post, I have talked about how I find it simply outrageous that serious scientific journals still treat the so called “supplementary information” as some kind of data dump, where no proper formatting is required and where noblesse does not oblige. This made me think about what other features of the current state of scientific publishing are lagging behind the available technology.
One of the distinguishing features of Web 2.0 is its interactive character. Back in the early days of Internet the websites were static and only rarely updated. Nowadays, however, the Web bustles with activity, with blogs, e-zines, discussion fora, and wikis changing their content on a daily, even hourly basis. It is the public that shapes the Web, not some chosen few. So why not adopt some of that democratic approach in scientific publishing?
(more…)
February 18, 2009 at 3:41 am Leave a comment