cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Web 2.0 → Web 2.1 → Galileo 3.0. Intl. J. Inact., 1:150–152
As readers of this blog and others such as Climate Audit know, reviewing new ideas, essays, and papers can often progress very quickly with the help of a widely varied readership. But we still wait for traditional methods somethimes, and for the fast pace of venues like this, it can be excruciatingly slow.
[…] That 8 weeks [of waiting for a scientific paper regarding AIRS] was long by electronic media standards, but pretty quick by traditional science journal standards. But that may be about to change. […]
From the Economist, September 20th, 2008 (h/t to Dave Stealy)
[…] Peer-review possesses other merits, the foremost being the ability to filter out dross. But alacrity is not its strong suit. With luck a paper will be published several months after being submitted; many languish for over a year because of bans on multiple submissions. This hampers scientific progress, […]
Now change is afoot. Earlier this month Seed Media Group, a firm based in New York, launched the latest version of Research Blogging, a website which acts as a hub for scientists to discuss peer-reviewed science. […]
[…] According to Adam Bly, Seed’s founder, internet-aided interdisciplinarity and globalisation, coupled with a generational shift, portend a great revolution. His optimism stems in large part from the fact that the new technologies are no mere newfangled gimmicks, but spring from a desire for timely peer review.
Well, this is what the Research Blogging front page looks like:
Notice the citations after each blog entry? Yes, Research Blogging is a service allowing scientists to blog about papers which were peer-reviewed the ‘traditional’ way. It’s not a way to publish new findings which haven’t appeared elsewhere. It doesn’t supplant the traditional process, it supplements it.
So, what The Economist — and Dr. Bly — did was to look at sites such as Research Blogging, and talk them up as if they’re portents of a “revolution” which will “overhaul” the existing system, oh noes! Of course, Watts was all too happy to play along with this, and now his audience is fantasizing about being the next persecuted Galileo:
garron: I think there may be resistance. This good change will come but it may take while. Lots of money and jobs tied to the status quo.
Richard111: Good site. Index works well. I think it will be a hit. Current peer review has lost it’s authority. Sign of the times.
Duh. Sorry, but peer review’s still doing fine. And even if Dr. Bly’s “Science 2.0” thang comes to fruition, whatever it is, it certainly won’t be what you guys think it should be.