Meta news

[dr_bob]

For those who get all their science news from the mainstream media (esp BBC) here is a meta analysis of interweb science reporting and a follow-up blog explaining some of the weirdness and lacks of current BBC webstories.

Don't miss out on the meta comments too.

Comments

[undyingking]

Ooh, I hadn't seen the follow-up -- good stuff. Although the point about the actual papers being behind journals' paywalls seems insuperable.

[bateleur]

That depends. Eventually (although academia moves slowly in this respect) the actual scientists may realise that publishing things is no longer a difficult, expensive business and that they can do it themselves and get rid of all the journals.

The only thing which matters is peer review. Universities could quite easily organise a system for that if they put their minds to it.

Indeed, this could actually speed up research in some fields. Back when I was doing my DPhil I submitted precisely zero papers for publication mainly because I knew perfectly well that the major journals' idea of who suitable reviewers would be would make it almost impossible to get anything printed. Starting off with "my reviewers are all full of sh*t and their results are either faked or irrelevant" isn't a winning formula!

[undyingking]

From the marketing point of view, though - where scientists are motivated by being read (and being cited) - won't having their work appear under some sort of well-known banner (such as a journal provides) always add value to the release of results?

As an intermediate step, this finding comparing the usage of open-access publication across various scientific disciplines is quite interesting. Many open-access publications are peer-reviewed, although I don't know how that's organized or funded.

[bateleur]

Yes, the reputation levels of existing journals will slow the transition. However, not all research needs that boost. If you discover something important you get viral publicity in the same way as consumer fields.

I don't know how that's organized or funded

According to that Wikipedia article, making electronic versions free after a delay seems quite popular. This is a good way to do it, since a serious research establishment won't mind paying for up-to-date information whilst the benefits of open access are not lost by introducing a delay.

[dr_bob]

The best example of open access publishing is the PLoS (Public Library of Science) series of journals. They are immediately available and have an neat array of statistics (eg number of downloads, site visits etc) and opportunities for reader comment (I think) all handled online. The funding is by researchers paying a publication charge (somewhere betwen 1000 and 2000 dollars. A lot of the process of turning the article into a print-ready PDF is automated too.

Alternatively, PNAS have some of their articles as immediately open access. I think this is through extra payment by the researchers, too, although I may be wrong.

[bateleur]

between 1000 and 2000 dollars

Ouch!

[dr_bob]

But in the context of a £300,000 research grant where papers are the measure of success, it's not such a large cost.

[bateleur]

True, true.

where papers are the measure of success

*&#@!

:-P

[dr_bob]

Don't get me started.

Besides, science is too interesting to have to bother spending time telling other people about it...
:o)