On Sunday, May 06, 2012 6:42 AM, Christopher Green wrote: >Something for scientists -- long dedicated to the printed journal article -- to >think about. > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/science-and-truth-were-all-in-it-together.html?hp > >Snippet: "By now, readers understand that the definitive “copy” of any article >is no longer the one on paper but the online copy, precisely because it’s the >version that’s been read and mauled and annotated by readers.... Writers know >this already. The print edition of any article is little more than a trophy >version, the equivalent of a diploma or certificate of merit — suitable for >framing, not much else."
I think that there is a serious confusion in the NY Times article, namely, that having a traditional "formal" publication in paper format is no more important or significant than an "informal" "publication" such as blog, chatboard, etc. So, let me make a few points: (1) Whether a scientific article is on paper or not is irrelevant. It is the process of peer review and being made part of an archival database that is important. APA and other companies have realized the business potential not only in providing "indexing" services, as represented in the old "Psychological Abstracts" and current PsycInfo, but also in creating electronic copies of articles for which it owns the copyright. These resources are now our record of research and commentary on psychological research. And APA or some other entity will maintain them well into the future. Again, it not being on paper that is important, it is becoming a part of the research record/archive that is important, whether it is in paper form or not. Who is going to keep blogs and websites available well into the future? (2) It seems to me that the author is making the argument that "informal" sources, such as blogs, websites, chatboards, etc., may provide a significant source of discussion and commentary on "formal" publications. This is, as we say, an empirical question. However, the author seems to indicate that the authors of the "formal" article in Science have it wrong while the "informal" discussants and commentators have it right. If this is really so, why hasn't someone submitted the evidence in a formal way to Science or Nature or some other credible outlet? Does one really think that arguing the different sides of a scientific result or issue is going to be meaningfully resolved in the blogosphere or the Web 2.0? How well has that worked on vaccine-autism "connection"? So, in conclusion, I'm not really sure what the author's point was and I think he is confused on some issues if not outright wrong. Oh, and don't forget to read the comments. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=17664 or send a blank email to leave-17664-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
