New approaches may affect how issues of interest to our readers are discussed:
Journals are evolving into information platforms. This development provides a key to understanding recent trends in science publishing, and raises important questions about its future. …
The validation and filtration of scientific knowledge, which principally occur through the process of peer review, have proven more difficult to replicate. But even here, the leaves are stirring. In physics, platforms such as quantum (https://quantum-journal.org/), researchers.one (https://www.researchers.one/) and, perhaps most impressively, SciPost (https://scipost.org/) are experimenting with innovative approaches such as transparent peer review, user comments and even doing away with the concept of accepting or rejecting papers entirely. Their editorial and business models also differ, but are predicated on the idea of being controlled by fellow scientists, open access and not for profit. Whether or not these services can, to use the parlance of tech, be made to scale under these conditions is an open question. But there is no doubt they are gaining tractionEditorial, “Rise of the platforms” at Nature (Nature Physics volume 15, page 871 (2019))
Would these newer approaches to science publishing make it easier to discuss difficult topics? For example, if Gunter Bechly could have been evaluated only on his work and not on the fact that he switched sides in the Darwin wars, wouldn’t that be better for everyone but Darwin trolls?
See also: Gunter Bechly: Farewell, says the apeman Why wave goodbye? Because if this skull is a guide, the transition from not-really-Lucy to a-bit-like-Lucy to almost-Lucy to Hi, Lucy!! never really happened.
Follow UD News at Twitter!