Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
A ton to be thankful for -- here is one part of that - all the acknowledgement sections from my scholarly papers
So - it is another Thanksgiving Day and in addition to thinking about family, and football, and Alice's Restaurant, I also think a lot a...
-
I have a hardback version of The Bird Way by Jennifer Ackerma n but had not gotten around to reading it alas. But now I am listening to th...
-
There is a spreading surge of PDF sharing going on in relation to a tribute to Aaron Swartz who died a few days ago. For more on Aaron ... -
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Just got an email invitation to a meeting. The meeting is " THE FIRST ANNUAL WINTER Q-BIO ...
In one way, the physicists were way ahead of biologists in terms of open access, as arXiv shows. On the other hand, the model of arXiv is very different from open access biological collections such as PubMed Central or open access publishers like PLoS-- physicists submit things to arXiv *before* submitting them to a peer reviewed journal -- in some cases, the comments received on arXiv are all the peer review a paper gets -- and yet physicists feel comfortable citing a paper on arXiv.
ReplyDeleteI realize that being peer reviewed isn't a magical guarantee of correctness, but I'm glad open access in the biological world has kept it.
I am not so sure we cannot mix and match. I think in the long run, one could have preprint servers like arXiv and also do full peer review. The preprint server would serve as a way of setting priority and communicating information early on, and then peer review would serve to say what the quality of the stuff is.
ReplyDeleteTree of Life is the spotlight blog on the fairly new UC Davis blogs page http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/ -- and, thanks to Jonathan, the blogs list is longer with more science blogs, including one from Mario Pineda-Krch, a theoretical ecologist.
ReplyDeletethx Susanne
ReplyDelete