User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2010/07/26: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Autocreate 2010/07/26 Entry for User:Daniel_Mietchen/Notebook/Open_Science)
 
Line 6: Line 6:
| colspan="2"|
| colspan="2"|
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
==Entry title==
== Wikis can act as publication filters for new research ==
* Insert content here...
* The following is a comment on [http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/2010/07/do-we-still-need-pre-publication-peer.html Do we still need pre-publication peer-review ?] by [http://pbeltrao.blogspot.com/ Pedro Beltrão]:
<blockquote>
I fully agree that we have a problem here, but don't think we're that far off a workable solution: technically, [[wiki]]s can do the filtering already today — it is just that culturally (being so accustomed to the [[scholarly journal|journal]] article as ''the'' container of new [[scientific research|research]]), we are not ready for this yet. <br/> <br/>


Example: If someone were to have investigated [http://berylliumj10.imascientist.org.uk/2010/06/if-you-castrate-guinea-pigs-does-it-make-a-diffrance-to-the-behaviour whether castration would induce behavioral changes in guinea pigs], they could simply note this on the talk pages of the articles [[Guinea pig]], [[Castration]], [[Behavior]], [[Hormone regulation]] or related articles, and include into their post a link to the relevant entries in their [[Open notebook science|notebooks]]. <br/> <br/>
Of course, we could think of them putting the note simply on their [[blog]], [[tag (software)|tagging]] it, and the community of those who [[Special:Watchlist|watch]] the wiki articles linked to those tags (or [[Special:Categories|categories]]) being notified automatically (e.g. via those talk pages, or [[mailing list]]s or [[Friendfeed group]]s). <br/> <br/>
In either case, the [[post-publication peer review]] would be about whether and how any of these wiki articles should be updated in light of the new evidence. <br/> <br/>
The idea of posting the news on talk pages serves the purpose of limiting self-promotion within the framework of current wikis, but if the wiki had a [[karma (software|karma]] system (ideally at both [[article-level metrics|article]] and [[scientometrics|systemic]] and possibly intermediate levels), researchers could update the relevant articles themselves, giving them the chance to increase their karma at the risk of karma losses if either the content or its presentation are judged non-appropriate by the relevant articles' communities.
</blockquote>


<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->

Revision as of 17:18, 25 July 2010

What would science look like if it were open? <html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page
<html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</html>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html>

Wikis can act as publication filters for new research

I fully agree that we have a problem here, but don't think we're that far off a workable solution: technically, wikis can do the filtering already today — it is just that culturally (being so accustomed to the journal article as the container of new research), we are not ready for this yet.

Example: If someone were to have investigated whether castration would induce behavioral changes in guinea pigs, they could simply note this on the talk pages of the articles Guinea pig, Castration, Behavior, Hormone regulation or related articles, and include into their post a link to the relevant entries in their notebooks.

Of course, we could think of them putting the note simply on their blog, tagging it, and the community of those who watch the wiki articles linked to those tags (or categories) being notified automatically (e.g. via those talk pages, or mailing lists or Friendfeed groups).

In either case, the post-publication peer review would be about whether and how any of these wiki articles should be updated in light of the new evidence.

The idea of posting the news on talk pages serves the purpose of limiting self-promotion within the framework of current wikis, but if the wiki had a karma system (ideally at both article and systemic and possibly intermediate levels), researchers could update the relevant articles themselves, giving them the chance to increase their karma at the risk of karma losses if either the content or its presentation are judged non-appropriate by the relevant articles' communities.


Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Notebook/Open_Science/2010/07/26&oldid=435682"