Yes, that would be better, but as yourself note, it’s a big change that’s unlikely to happen in one go. On the other hand, specialized journals are not a novelty, and considering that at least some folks took that specific specialization up, it appears to be more an issue of advertising than invention.
But nobody said this problem should be attacked on just one front. More (different) attempts mean more chances of success, no?
The coolest thing about the visualized experiment journal is that it exploits current computer technology to extend the scope of what a scientific publication means. Provide a new channel to communicate ideas on a higher bandwidth using the new but cheaply and generally available infrastructure of the net.
I agree that starting a journal like you mentioned can’t do any harm.
Still, I think that for the specific purpose you have in mind (replication studies,critics, follow-up) a technologically more advanced solution would be essential. The reason is that most of the studies would be attributes on existing publications and therefore an easily accessible database structure would make scientific discourse much more fluid and transparent. Checking articles for replicated results, criticisms would become much easier and therefore pushing the authors to higher standards, also exposing fake research and journals.
The necessary technology for that does not include much 21st century stuff. A system simpler than the imdb of the 90ies combined with some off-the-shelf social networking framework would easily do the trick. Since there are lot of existing journal databases, I am pretty sure we are going to see several alternative solutions emerging in the next few years for the exact same purpose. In fact, we can already see that to some extent.
I would also see some value of combining a traditional peer reviewed journal structure with such a system to boost credibility of both the system and the journal.
My general opinion is that scientific publishing (more so than popular literature or newspapers) is at the brink of a huge paradigm shift. Just entering the field with an old-fashioned stuff that does not look forward technologically is dead end IMO.
Yes, that would be better, but as yourself note, it’s a big change that’s unlikely to happen in one go. On the other hand, specialized journals are not a novelty, and considering that at least some folks took that specific specialization up, it appears to be more an issue of advertising than invention.
But nobody said this problem should be attacked on just one front. More (different) attempts mean more chances of success, no?
The coolest thing about the visualized experiment journal is that it exploits current computer technology to extend the scope of what a scientific publication means. Provide a new channel to communicate ideas on a higher bandwidth using the new but cheaply and generally available infrastructure of the net.
I agree that starting a journal like you mentioned can’t do any harm.
Still, I think that for the specific purpose you have in mind (replication studies,critics, follow-up) a technologically more advanced solution would be essential. The reason is that most of the studies would be attributes on existing publications and therefore an easily accessible database structure would make scientific discourse much more fluid and transparent. Checking articles for replicated results, criticisms would become much easier and therefore pushing the authors to higher standards, also exposing fake research and journals.
The necessary technology for that does not include much 21st century stuff. A system simpler than the imdb of the 90ies combined with some off-the-shelf social networking framework would easily do the trick. Since there are lot of existing journal databases, I am pretty sure we are going to see several alternative solutions emerging in the next few years for the exact same purpose. In fact, we can already see that to some extent.
I would also see some value of combining a traditional peer reviewed journal structure with such a system to boost credibility of both the system and the journal.
My general opinion is that scientific publishing (more so than popular literature or newspapers) is at the brink of a huge paradigm shift. Just entering the field with an old-fashioned stuff that does not look forward technologically is dead end IMO.