Comments on: Open science and the competition-collaboration slider http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/08/21/open-science-and-the-competition-collaboration-slider/ Let's just see what happens Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:40:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Adina Levin http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/08/21/open-science-and-the-competition-collaboration-slider/comment-page-1/#comment-37873 Adina Levin Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:35:27 +0000 http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=7111#comment-37873 Also, why do we need to wait for peer review to be complete before seeing anything about work in progress. It seems to me that the completion of initial peer review is just one, intermediate status step in a long knowledge life cycle. It is useful to have a workflow taxonomy where "completed initial peer review" is a meaningful and important step. Prior to "completed initial peer review", content can be available, and cited as such. Following "completed initial peer review", there is a much longer cycle of reference and commentary, where information that passed initial peer review may be cited, amplified, modified, contradicted, re-interpreted. Also, why do we need to wait for peer review to be complete before seeing anything about work in progress. It seems to me that the completion of initial peer review is just one, intermediate status step in a long knowledge life cycle.

It is useful to have a workflow taxonomy where “completed initial peer review” is a meaningful and important step. Prior to “completed initial peer review”, content can be available, and cited as such.

Following “completed initial peer review”, there is a much longer cycle of reference and commentary, where information that passed initial peer review may be cited, amplified, modified, contradicted, re-interpreted.

]]> By: davidw http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/08/21/open-science-and-the-competition-collaboration-slider/comment-page-1/#comment-37718 davidw Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:46:39 +0000 http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=7111#comment-37718 Richard, it's not at all clear to me that formal, peer-review is THE best system. It certainly has advantages and strengths. But it also has weaknesses, including being a slow process and one that favors status quo science. Other processes have their own strengths and weaknesses. This is not an either/or. Do formal peer review and informal peer and arXiv and ... So long as there is sufficient transparency. Metadata sets us free. Richard, it’s not at all clear to me that formal, peer-review is THE best system. It certainly has advantages and strengths. But it also has weaknesses, including being a slow process and one that favors status quo science. Other processes have their own strengths and weaknesses.

This is not an either/or. Do formal peer review and informal peer and arXiv and … So long as there is sufficient transparency. Metadata sets us free.

]]> By: Richard Carter, FCD http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/08/21/open-science-and-the-competition-collaboration-slider/comment-page-1/#comment-37716 Richard Carter, FCD Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:27:32 +0000 http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=7111#comment-37716 Only half a 'Yay', really. It's great that scientific research is being published free online - and I'm sure this will become more and more common. But, if everyone does it without going through a formal, peer-review process, it becomes untrustworthy science. Peer-review is by no means perfect, but it's the best filtering system we've got. Only half a ‘Yay’, really.

It’s great that scientific research is being published free online – and I’m sure this will become more and more common. But, if everyone does it without going through a formal, peer-review process, it becomes untrustworthy science. Peer-review is by no means perfect, but it’s the best filtering system we’ve got.

]]> By: SamW http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/08/21/open-science-and-the-competition-collaboration-slider/comment-page-1/#comment-37702 SamW Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:15:29 +0000 http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=7111#comment-37702 Seems like an issue with the incentive structure. For scientists, there are likely incentives to both ends of the slider. Credit, glory, publication may push toward competition, while standing in the community, and a larger sense of contribution to society would pull in the other. For any individual, the slider may be more to one side or the other depending on the institution in which the individual operates. Incentives may be culturally ingrained as well--in the field of research, the institution, or the lab setting. I'd guess that in science and academia there are greater incentives to collaboration than in other fields. Seems like an issue with the incentive structure. For scientists, there are likely incentives to both ends of the slider. Credit, glory, publication may push toward competition, while standing in the community, and a larger sense of contribution to society would pull in the other.

For any individual, the slider may be more to one side or the other depending on the institution in which the individual operates. Incentives may be culturally ingrained as well–in the field of research, the institution, or the lab setting.

I’d guess that in science and academia there are greater incentives to collaboration than in other fields.

]]> By: Golden Swamp » Science online and open begins to replace crazy old model http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2008/08/21/open-science-and-the-competition-collaboration-slider/comment-page-1/#comment-37689 Golden Swamp » Science online and open begins to replace crazy old model Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:10:01 +0000 http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=7111#comment-37689 [...] Joho the Blog Filed under Uncategorized on August 21, 2008 - Leave Your [...] [...] Joho the Blog Filed under Uncategorized on August 21, 2008 – Leave Your [...]

]]>