The speed of science - Works in Progress
peter.suber's bookmarks 2022-01-03
"By the same token, we envision research as a production output, collectively produced by teams of people who become specialists in various aspects of a transparent research process, much like cutting-edge software engineering is already done. Scientists would not be all-rounders; they would be a team. Scientists working on a project would be a team of theorists, epidemiologists, statisticians, programmers, Red Team reviewers, code-checkers, managers, writers, copy-editors and communicators. And as databases are created and research is contracted and disseminated openly, there would be an ever-growing number of scientists who would become contributors to an expanding universe of scientific knowledge.
There would be benefits to scientific integrity too: if peer review was a speciality, there would be less pressure on reviewers to write favourable reviews for colleagues, because they would now have more independence from the spheres where researchers work.
Many critics of open science contend that radical reform asks too much of researchers, but this kind of specialisation would fill two needs with one deed: it would reduce the burden of work placed on each individual researcher while increasing the quality and quantity of science conducted by researchers overall...."