Science publishing on the fast lane, plus optionally in journals
08.30.09 by Daniel Mietchen
About two weeks ago, PLoS, Google Knol and NCBI announced a potentially groundbreaking collaboration: PLoS Currents — a new platform within Knol and mirrored at NCBI — allows for rapid submission of research results to the eyes of the public prior to, or possibly instead of, formal publication.
The idea is not new — arxiv.org has been operating a preprint repository for almost two decades in the TeX-based sciences, and Nature Precedings for about two years in the remaining scientific fields. What is new here is the combination of preprints with an encyclopedia — Knol — and its embedding in the framework of a larger repository — Rapid Research Notes, operated by NCBI, the computational arm of the NIH — which is open for other publishers to join if they so wish. This way, a systematic record-keeping of information that has traditionally been transmitted only via meetings and conferences is now on the horizon.
The initiative is timely — Knol was launched last summer but the laudations around its first anniversary could easily be mistaken for obituaries (mainly because it failed to rival Wikipedia the way many had expected), while experiments with the coupling of Wikipedia contributions and formal publication have now been going on for more than half a year at the journal RNA Biology. It is also timely because indications accrue that the current scientific publishing landscape might change dramatically soon.
People at PLoS do not seem to embrace the role of merely observing these developments — they prefer to help them take shape. From this perspective, it is not surprising that PLoS would venture into wiki-like waters, though Knol is certainly not the only option for such activities.
What would science look like if it were invented today?
07.13.09 by Daniel Mietchen
Editor’s Note: The following is an article by guest blogger Daniel Mietchen, PhD, originially written up for the Euroscientist, the blog of Euroscience.org. This first part of a two-part series on “What would science look like if it were invented today?” deals specifically with the implications of the transition from paper-based to electronic communication for the process of knowledge creation. It delves into the importance of collaboration and openness in science. FundScience.org cross-posts this article, as well as the forthcoming second installment, because of our passion to promote open science and collaboration, not only between scientists, but between the scientific community and the public. Note that the drafting takes place in a wiki, so you can join in.
The Internet represents an opportunity to change this system, one which has created a 300-year-old, collective long-term memory, into something new and more efficient, perhaps adding in a current, collective short-term working memory at the same time. With new online tools, scientists could begin to share techniques, data and ideas online to the benefit of all parties, and the public at large. (Robert J. Simpson, paraphrasing Michael Nielsen)
Sure, it is hard to imagine you reading this blog post in a world which hadn’t yet engaged in science but the question “What would email look like if it were invented today” was recently addressed during the presentation of the Wave protocol, and entertaining some similar ideas on reinventing science may perhaps be worthwhile: how would a system have to be designed that creates and structures knowledge such that these two complex processes can effectively feed on and adapt to each other, making use of the most appropriate technologies at hand? Both processes are highly interrelated but to facilitate the discussion, we will first consider them separately (in this and the next issue of the Euroscientist), and then provide a synthesis (to which you can contribute).
| Posted in Research Resources | Comments Off
| Posted in Research Resources | 2 Comments »