Open access and open publishing are recurring themes at bbgm, and I would like to point readers to some excellent discussion on open access. 3 Quarks Daily has an excellent post discussing the open access movement. The post talks about the driving factors behind open access, and goes on to discuss some of the key issues in some detail. A highly recommended read.
Peter Murray-Rust, whose blog is fast becoming a favorite, talks about community peer-review in the chemistry world. He starts by asking a question that I have asked a few people lately. Why do scientists publish in journals in this day and age? The aspect that I find most interesting is the whole concept of publishing and the scientific record. In a “print only” world, the traditional approach seems quite appropriate, but what about today? The danger in an internet world is longevity and archiving, but the entire concept of just pdf versions of journal papers also seems somewhat limiting. Most importantly, in an era where blogs are a key form of communication, there can be a real time conversation, the kind that I hope PLoS One will be able to foster. I completely agree with Peter in that community is capable of effective peer review. I am a big fan of organized chaos, and a successful implementation of this for peer review and publishing will be a key factor in the future of scientific publishing. I am convinced that open publishing is inevitable. Within the coming decade, a good chunk of the scientific publishing world will be open access. Will peer review be equally open? I am not so sure about that, but I am cautiously optimistic.
Open access – another look
Open access and open publishing are recurring themes at bbgm, and I would like to point readers to some excellent discussion on open access. 3 Quarks Daily has an excellent post discussing the open access movement. The post talks about the driving factors behind open access, and goes on to discuss some of the key issues in some detail. A highly recommended read.
Peter Murray-Rust, whose blog is fast becoming a favorite, talks about community peer-review in the chemistry world. He starts by asking a question that I have asked a few people lately. Why do scientists publish in journals in this day and age? The aspect that I find most interesting is the whole concept of publishing and the scientific record. In a “print only” world, the traditional approach seems quite appropriate, but what about today? The danger in an internet world is longevity and archiving, but the entire concept of just pdf versions of journal papers also seems somewhat limiting. Most importantly, in an era where blogs are a key form of communication, there can be a real time conversation, the kind that I hope PLoS One will be able to foster. I completely agree with Peter in that community is capable of effective peer review. I am a big fan of organized chaos, and a successful implementation of this for peer review and publishing will be a key factor in the future of scientific publishing. I am convinced that open publishing is inevitable. Within the coming decade, a good chunk of the scientific publishing world will be open access. Will peer review be equally open? I am not so sure about that, but I am cautiously optimistic.
Further Reading:
The onslaught against scientific publication
Science Review: American Idol Style
Timo Hannay’s Connotea bookmarks tagged “peer review debate”
Maxine’s Connotea bookmarks tagged “peer review debate”
Technorati Tags: Open Access, Open Publishing, Peer Review, Open Peer Review, Peter Murray-Rust