NeuroLogica Blog » Open Science 2015-05-12


"There is a movement to open access to scientific information, and with the relatively new resources provided by the internet and social media, we may be heading rapidly in that direction. However, I don’t think this will be an easy transition and we should consider the possible unintended consequences. A 2012 commentary by Nosek and Bar-Anan outlined the changes that would open science: 'We call for six changes: (1) full embrace of digital communication, (2) open access to all published research, (3) disentangling publication from evaluation, (4) breaking the 'one article, one journal' model with a grading system for evaluation and diversified dissemination outlets, (5) publishing peer review, and, (6) allowing open, continuous peer review. We address conceptual and practical barriers to change, and provide examples showing how the suggested practices are being used already.' The Center for Open Science outlines a similar mission ... I agree that it is time to reconsider the entire infrastructure of how scientific research is documented and reported. While scientists and scientific institutions have been utilizing internet and social media resources, it has been ad hoc without a coherent widely accepted plan. That may not be a bad thing, to let systems develop organically, allow experimentation and see what shakes out. The experiment may have gone on long enough, however, to step back, see what we learned, and think about how to craft an optimal infrastructure.  I definitely think we should not be stuck in a system that is based upon printing paper journals. If I had my own wish list of where I think we should be, it would include ..."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.comment oa.publishing oa.open_science oa.peer_review

Date tagged:

05/12/2015, 07:11

Date published:

05/12/2015, 03:11