De Economist bericht over het veranderende wetenschappelijke debat onder invloed van 2.0 webtools, zoals weblogs, wiki's en online communities (denk bij deze laatste bijvoorbeeld aan Nature Network).
"The drawback of the journal process is that it doesn’t allow a space for public and open debate and discussion of ideas in a convenient and quick way. This isn’t necessarily their fault, that’s not what they are designed for. But there is a space in the scientific community for this kind of reviewing, commenting and evaluation of ideas, allowing groups of scientists to work together to refine and improve ideas."
Het traditionele tijdschrift met zijn uitgebreide peer review procedure wordt "gebypased" door deze nieuwe vormen van wetenschappeijke communicatie. Als voorbeeld wordt Research Blogging genoemd. Een site "designed to act as a hub for peer-reviewed science. The aim is to bring together in one place all of the many discussions that are happening all over the web, to allow more people to get involved in the discussions and to organise them in a way that makes it easy to search", aldus Math Rhodes in socialmediatoday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment