{"id":95,"date":"2008-04-08T12:03:42","date_gmt":"2008-04-08T20:03:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/08\/old-versus-new\/"},"modified":"2008-04-08T14:13:28","modified_gmt":"2008-04-08T22:13:28","slug":"old-versus-new","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/08\/old-versus-new\/","title":{"rendered":"Old versus New"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"sheet by <\/em><\/span>cesstrelle74<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>
\nWeb 2.0: In defense of editors<\/a>:
\n[Via Bench Marks<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Ran into a few very interesting (and very different) articles last week, which I wanted to comment on (more posts to follow).
\nFirst up is a blog posting on Sciencebase<\/a> that quotes chemist (and blogger) Joerg Kurt Wegner<\/a>, with a proposal that the solution for information overload is to do away with editorial oversight and instead rely on social software. Now, obviously, I\u2019m heavily biased here, and I admit that up front. I\u2019m an editor, it\u2019s what I do for a living, and if I didn\u2019t think I made valuable contributions, I would do something else. That said, there are several problems with Wegner\u2019s proposal.
\n[More<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Web 2.0 encourages people to publish quickly, then work to make it better. This may not be the best route for many scientific endeavors, particularly biological ones.<\/em><\/p>\n

Editors and peer reviewers perform a vital task – they make sure that the science is done right. It requires special training and a firm understanding of the topic to do this well. Even then there are some important mistakes, as recently happened in <\/em>Proteomics<\/a><\/em>, where a misleading and plagiarized article was published in February.<\/em><\/p>\n

The editors\/reviewers made a mistake in allowing publication. But the errors and plagiarism were discovered<\/a> by well-educated people (mostly other scientists and interested individuals) on the web. And this information spread rapidly, forcing the journal to publish a retraction and pull the paper.<\/em><\/p>\n

Science will need editors and peer reviewers from some time, since good science does require careful scrutiny by experts. But, of necessity, this will be a small group of people, who may not see the forest for the trees.<\/em><\/p>\n

Perhaps some middle ground will be found between the old approaches and the Wikipedia’s of the world. I am sure that the editors of Proteomics, whose reputation was hurt by this, would have liked to have some way for a larger group to review before publication.<\/em><\/p>\n

Preprints have been the standard way of sending a draft around to colleagues in order to get comments. Web 2.0 approaches using Open Science may hold similar appeal. Many hard <\/em>science papers (physics, math, etc.) are online<\/a><\/em> at very early points in the process.<\/em><\/p>\n

The journal Nature is doing something similar with <\/em>Precedings<\/a><\/em>. These will be important adjuncts to the old way.<\/em><\/p>\n

They will enhance but never replace. At least for scientists.
\n<\/em>
\n<\/p>\n

Technorati Tags: Open Access<\/a>, Science<\/a>, Technology<\/a>, Web 2.0<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by cesstrelle74 Web 2.0: In defense of editors: [Via Bench Marks] Ran into a few very interesting (and very different) articles last week, which I wanted to comment on (more posts to follow). First up is a blog posting on Sciencebase that quotes chemist (and blogger) Joerg Kurt Wegner, with a proposal that the solution … Continue reading Old versus New<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[7,3,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open-access","category-science","category-web-20"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pe2yp-1x","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":119,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/16\/pauls-principles-of-web-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":95,"position":0},"title":"Paul's Principles of Web 2.0","date":"April 16, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by aussiegall Web 2.0: Building the New Library [Via Ariadne] Paul Miller wrote this over 2 years ago but it amply describes the effects of new approaches will have on an area that lives by dispersing information. It is not the technology that will make a difference. It is an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "General"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":240,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/06\/16\/enterprise-is-next\/","url_meta":{"origin":95,"position":1},"title":"Enterprise is next","date":"June 16, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by * etoile Why Web 2.0 Is No Bubble: Corporations Are Willing to Pay for It: [Via HarvardBusiness.org] Everyone seems to want an answer to the question \"When will Web 2.0 startups start making money?\" The implication is that unless we can answer the question, the \"bubble\" of Web 2.0\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Web 2.0"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/06\/city.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":89,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/05\/discussing-science-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":95,"position":2},"title":"Discussing Science 2.0","date":"April 5, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by geishaboy500 Web 2.0 for Biologists-Are any of the current tools worth using?: [Via Bench Marks] David Crotty has been leading a discussion regarding the acceptance of Science 2.0 by scientists. Or rather the non-acceptance. It is ironic to use Web 2.0 approaches to examine why scientists do not use\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/04\/tools.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":236,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/06\/12\/i-love-the-title\/","url_meta":{"origin":95,"position":3},"title":"I love the title","date":"June 12, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"VIDEO: If the CIA can collaborate with Web 2.0 tools, so can you: [Via Enterprise 2.0 Blog] Having trouble trying to sell in Web 2.0-style collaboration to the higher ups in your enterprise organization? Are there VPs and CXOs that are shying away from wiki-style knowledge management because they don't\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Web 2.0"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":138,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/23\/web-20-expo-keynote-oreilly-talk\/","url_meta":{"origin":95,"position":4},"title":"Web 2.0 expo Keynote - O'Reilly talk","date":"April 23, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by takeshi enterprise wants in to Web 2.0 heart of it is collective intelligence, it is about using data to provide services. PageRank begining of web 2.0. people vote by links. wesabe - how people spend their money is a vote. can mine in waays that banks will not. let\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Web 2.0"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/04\/oreilly.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":93,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/07\/public-collaboration\/","url_meta":{"origin":95,"position":5},"title":"Public collaboration","date":"April 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by Clearly Ambiguous Work-in-Progress Culture: [Via Transparent Office] Michael Idinopulos makes a great observation - Web 2.0 is collaboration in public. Fewer closed doors and more open hallways. The real paradigm shift in Web 2.0, I believe, is the blurring the line between publication and collaboration. In the old days,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Knowledge Creation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}