The wiki is a dynamic companion to the paper and is meant to be a resource for the community. It’s an idea that I love. I’d argue that something like this should accompany other types of papers. Too often people publish papers with incremental improvements. Perhaps they could avoid doing that and update a companion wiki or something along those lines.
I do have one question though. Is this best done by a publisher, or the author? I can see both models having pluses and minuses. After all the information belongs to the author and if they self host, it could become the norm. On the other hand, the publisher hosting it does provide reduce some friction.
Wikifying Peer Review
Nature is experimenting again. Take a look at this wiki accompanying Lincoln Stein’s article for Nature Review Genetics
The wiki is a dynamic companion to the paper and is meant to be a resource for the community. It’s an idea that I love. I’d argue that something like this should accompany other types of papers. Too often people publish papers with incremental improvements. Perhaps they could avoid doing that and update a companion wiki or something along those lines.
I do have one question though. Is this best done by a publisher, or the author? I can see both models having pluses and minuses. After all the information belongs to the author and if they self host, it could become the norm. On the other hand, the publisher hosting it does provide reduce some friction.