Comments RSS
  1. Norman Creaney

    How do we get from here to there? — You have made a compelling case for where we would like to be. The question that needs answered is – how do we get from here to there? – how to overcome the vested interests in the status quo?

    • Krishan Maggon

      Untitled — Bruce,It is great idea, publish first online pool on any platform and then get edited and selected (badges) by a pool of selectors- Journals, universities, Prizes, newspapers, popular magazines, univesities, libraries, professional society etc. Can it be achieved or as Norman says how do we go there. Top Journal, Top University, English, Science establishment hold on to powers and influence has proven very difficult to shake out inspite of the success of open journals. Great knol

    • Bruce Caron

      Untitled — Thanks for the comments!I think the open access movement is the wedge here (and the stick). As more state agencies and universities move to require open access (and support immediate open access), a tension is created where a “great science filter” fund (the carrot) to push journals to start offering badges to the best science papers might push the needle over towards to new system.Some people I’ve spoken with resent the idea of paying (off) the current journals. My take is that they have built a valuable service, and they deserve a founding share in the next, digital, version. Hanging on to their share is then their business model.

    • Gust MEES

      Untitled — Hi Bruce,Sounds very interesting, I bookmark Your RSS Feeds to follow what is going on ;-)Best regards,Gust

    • Norman Creaney

      Untitled — Hi Bruce I wonder whether you have considered a citation based economy as an alternative to (or perhaps complementary to) one based on authoritative review (journal editors, etc.).

    • Bruce Caron

      Untitled — The citation economy is already in the works. Tenure decisions (at UC Santa Barbara, at least) are measuring this metric. So this is a complementary locale in the larger economy. Good point!

    • Norman Creaney

      Untitled — In the UK there has also been talk of replacing the existing (peer-review based) research assessment exercise with a new (metric based) one.

    • Krishan Maggon

      Untitled — Bruce and Norman,Everyone wants new metrics to replace commercial “citation index” and “Impact factor” and alternatives like page view, prints, email attachment, comments, star ranking, review are some of the factors which can lead to an alternative index if combined with Google Analytics data and Page Rank.This index must be validated in diverse subjects and fields like arts, social sciences, ecology, maths, music, biology, science, medicine for acceptance and routine use. With the prices of journal subscription going up, even top university libraries in Europe/US are finding it difficult to renew subscription. PLoS journals now routinely include real time metrics for all the journal articles as well as for the journals which includes, Page views, print outs, downloads, bookmarks, links, citation. As in knols, very few readers give star ratings or leave comments or review. Here is a recent paper which is very similar to good knols.http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009948

    • Bruce Caron

      Untitled — Krishnan,I’ve had talks with PLoS, Nature Networks, and the Smithsonian as to why they don’t get users to rate and comment on their sites. I would say this shows that you cannot just add on a bit of Web 2.0 to your site and expect people to act like it’s their own Facebook profile page.The real future for crowdsourcing peer review will happen when academic societies and universities and other places embed their communications into fully socially networked environments, where they allow the users to have a fair amount of active say in the network’s governance. This follows Clay Shirky’s notion of setting up the right bargain between the network and its members.

  2. Doug Holton

    role of google knol — I’d like to see journals pop up here at Google Knol, or else some other site that has a more open review process. I’ve seen the influenza and couple of other journals here at knol, and of course all the PLOS and related open journals elsewhere (many use OJS – open journal systems – for hosting).I’m not seeing any journals with post-publication or at least public reviews/commenting though outside of the hard sciences and medicine yet (correct me if there are though). My field is education, for example.I explored a bit on how to start a journal here and the workflow involved – this is a ‘fake’ journal test:http://knol.google.com/k/doug-holton/journal-test/15pkhk5yia4d5/3#I would like to see google knols embedded more into “fully socially networked environments” like you mentioned, though, for marketing and communication and so forth – twitter, facebook, google wave/buzz, blog mentions, etc., in addition to of course google scholar. Google knols apparently aren’t even listed in google scholar, just a handful of citations.

    • Bruce Caron

      Untitled — Thanks Doug. Knol is a great platform for collaborations and new collections. The PLoS team once told me it takes only about 120 scholars (in an intellectual community of practice) to create a new journal. Doing this on the Knol platform makes a lot of sense.

  3. Marcio von Muhlen

    fantastic post – but do we still need the Journals? — Bruce,Great post. I could see the badges being a great system, but as you mentioned getting prestigious journals on board would be akin to asking them to commit suicide. Perhaps they could be forced to by funding agencies, but keep in mind the editorial committees of prestigious journals are composed of the same people who control the funding. I just wrote something along these lines at http://marciovm.com/i-want-a-github-of-science. I got 40k views from 108 countries within 48 hours of posting, which shows the power of blogs and social news aggregators (the post went to #1 on Hacker News). That post looks at the tools software engineers use to distribute Open Source code (GitHub in particular) and concludes that Open Science should learn from them. A key finding is that journals need not be involved, instead one can rely on the credibility and influence of individual scientists, which can let one chip away at the system instead of challenging it head on (same way Facebook is replacing TV).-Marcio

    • Bruce Caron

      Untitled — Marcio,Thanks for the comment. We are, IMO, moving from a time where a few journals are in the center of the research publication recognition space. I was looking for a way to segue gracefully to a new recognition space by giving them a role during the transition. Not sure we need to do so. You’re right. I could see a github style replacement eroding their influence without them being on board at all. I really like your github blog, and I’ve tweeted it along. Congrats on its success!What I really like about your github notion is a way to attach new research results to a branch of existing work without having to write all this down again and again (80% of the content of most articles is a description of where the research fits into the larger picture). So we could see more microarticles attaching to existing branches based on shared protocols or shared data, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s