Very interesting read indeed. I recently came across the Biogeosciences
journal (http://www.biogeosciences.net/index.html), and I really like
their proposed model for publication. Form their own website:
"Biogeosciences has an innovative two-stage publication process which
involves a scientific discussion forum and exploits the full potential
of the Internet [...]. In the first stage, papers that pass a rapid
access-review by one of the editors are immediately published on the
Biogeosciences Discussions (BGD) website. They are then subject to
Interactive Public Discussion, during which the referees' comments
(anonymous or attributed), additional short comments by other members of
the scientific community (attributed) and the authors' replies are also
published in BGD. In the second stage, the peer-review process is
completed and, if accepted, the final revised papers are published in
BG. To ensure publication precedence for authors, and to provide a
lasting record of scientific discussion, BGD and BG are both
ISSN-registered, permanently archived and fully citable."
I think this is a great step towards harnessing the current potential
for discussion and interaction between scientists (akin to wikis) in the
information age. I'm not so excited about publication charges, but that
is another discussion.
Thiago Sanna Freire Silva
P.S. - I have no affiliation with the Biogeosciences journal or its
publishers.
BSc(Hons) in Biology - MSc in Remote Sensing
PhD Candidate at the Department of Geography
University of Victoria
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.thiagosilva.wordpress.com
SPECTRAL - Spectroradiometry Laboratoty
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/SPECT/index.html
William Silvert wrote:
> Thanks for posting this. Recently on another mailing list (FISHFOLK)
> there was a related discussion dealing with peer review sparked by a
> paper by Ray Hilborn,
> http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/large_pelagics/Hilborn_2006(faith).pdf,
> which I also recommend. It addressed the issue of whether the peer
> review process of such journals really guarantees quality, or whether
> the journals are mainly interested in making news.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hobbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:59 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Publish and be wrong?
>
>
>> Thought this was really interesting! I would only add that it's
>> those high profile studies published in Science or Nature that
>> attract a lot of opposition by fellow scientists.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Robert Lusardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: December 3, 2008 8:57:19 PM PST
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Publish and be wrong?
>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Hi all- below please find a link to the Economist article I
>>> referenced during lab meeting this morning. Interesting stuff.
>>>
>>> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12376658
>>>
>>> --Rob
>
--
Thiago Sanna Freire Silva
BSc(Hons) in Biology - MSc in Remote Sensing
PhD Candidate at the Department of Geography
University of Victoria
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.thiagosilva.wordpress.com
SPECTRAL - Spectroradiometry Laboratoty
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/SPECT/index.html
