There is a current opportunity in Synthetic Biology to re-evalute issues relating to scientific publishing. We are discussing possible improvements/alternatives that we would like to see, and how possibly to go about implementing them.
Please add your ideas/questions below that you would like to discuss.
Things to discuss
- Do we need a Synthetic Biology specific journal?
- Does the peer review process, as practiced work?
- Is peer review needed for engineering research articles?
- What features would we like for our papers? Reader comments? Reader Wiki?
- How should the structure of a paper be changed to reflect things like, well, the Internets?
- What existing journals are the most appropriate/receptive venues for publication of SB work?
- How is publishing on SB topics different from any other field?
- What are the other (if any) alternate publishing models already out there?
- Non-synthetic biology improvement:Author IDs or URIs or something. Noticed this while trying to set up myNCBI searches for people with more common names, what a pain. I'm changing my name to xyuitk.
- Can we ensure that publishing and access to publications is equally open to all institutions regardless of rank?
- <your question/idea>
- Hal Abelson and John Wilbanks gave interesting talks on Open Networks and Open Society: The Relationship between Freedom, Law, and Technology.
- An OECD report on scientific publishing was published a couple of weeks ago and seems especially relevent. Here are links to the press release and report
- A new journal relevant to our discussions today Biology Direct. Be sure to check out the "novel peer review process". from Drew.
- Slashdot post on Indirect Documents At Last. In particular, see this post with the full article text. It discusses a different type of document structure from that used now which formed a different vision for the web. Also touches on copyright issues.