4 ms·

Admirable cause, but the author doesn't do themselves any favors by dramatically overstating the role of publication in knowledge sharing (informal channels & c

by 3am 14y ago

Admirable cause, but the author doesn't do themselves any favors by dramatically overstating the role of publication in knowledge sharing (informal channels & conferences exist, publication serves more of a recognition purpose), and with somewhat offensive, unsupported claims like, "The stakes are high. If these inefficiencies can be removed, science would accelerate tremendously. A faster science would lead to faster innovation in medicine and technology. Cancer could be cured 2-3 years sooner than it otherwise would be, which would save millions of lives"

RichardPrice 14y ago
I don't think informal channels, and conferences, which are infrequent, and really expensive to travel to, are enough. Before the 1600s, science was largely done by wealthy people who had large enough houses to have a laboratory in. Scientific results weren't publicly shared; at best they were shared between the experimenter and a few of his/her friends, who communicated by private letters. In the late 1600s, the first journal was founded, which meant that it became the norm for all scientific results to be shared publicly. This era coincided with the birth of the Scientific Revolution, which was an incredible flourishing of scientific thinking, that formed the basis of modern science. I think that with a much more connected scientific community, that operated more as a global brain, rather than relatively disconnected nodes, scientific progress could double. So if cancer would normally be cured in, x years, I can see that coming down to 1/2x years, with an accelerated science, and, given the length of x, that shortening is likely to be a matter of years.
- 3am 14y ago
  Best of luck with academia.edu!
Thrymr 14y ago
I agree strongly, conferences in particular are very important in this regard. Perhaps in some fields people are cautious about sharing full results at conferences, but in most it is very much encouraged and beneficial to get your ideas out there to the community before a paper can come out. The "12 month time-lag" cited in the article usually includes at least one conference presentation, in which the main results can be presented, often receiving useful feedback that can result in a stronger finished paper as well. Could scientists make better use of modern communication media? Sure. I particularly wish more fields would adopt the arXiv model. But the peer-reviewed journal is not going to be displaced anytime soon, the best we can hope for is to make the process more transparent and open, more reflective of the interests of Science and scientists, and less of the for-profit journal industry. I highly doubt that the problem will be solved by "science startups." There are large non-profit interests as well, I expect the progress to be made by individual scientists, universities, and professional organizations who have an interest in destroying the status quo.
mturmon 14y ago
Indeed, the post completely overlooks conferences, which in many fast-moving disciplines (most of CS, e.g.) are really the main venue for presenting new work, superseding journal publications. Think ICML or NIPS in machine learning -- 6 months apart. I question the need for a for-profit enterprise like the one the author promotes inserting itself into the research enterprise. Publishers are bad enough.

by 3am 14y ago

RichardPrice 14y ago

I don't think informal channels, and conferences, which are infrequent, and really expensive to travel to, are enough. Before the 1600s, science was largely done by wealthy people who had large enough houses to have a laboratory in. Scientific results weren't publicly shared; at best they were shared between the experimenter and a few of his/her friends, who communicated by private letters. In the late 1600s, the first journal was founded, which meant that it became the norm for all scientific results to be shared publicly. This era coincided with the birth of the Scientific Revolution, which was an incredible flourishing of scientific thinking, that formed the basis of modern science. I think that with a much more connected scientific community, that operated more as a global brain, rather than relatively disconnected nodes, scientific progress could double. So if cancer would normally be cured in, x years, I can see that coming down to 1/2x years, with an accelerated science, and, given the length of x, that shortening is likely to be a matter of years.

3am 14y ago
Best of luck with academia.edu!

Thrymr 14y ago

I agree strongly, conferences in particular are very important in this regard. Perhaps in some fields people are cautious about sharing full results at conferences, but in most it is very much encouraged and beneficial to get your ideas out there to the community before a paper can come out. The "12 month time-lag" cited in the article usually includes at least one conference presentation, in which the main results can be presented, often receiving useful feedback that can result in a stronger finished paper as well. Could scientists make better use of modern communication media? Sure. I particularly wish more fields would adopt the arXiv model. But the peer-reviewed journal is not going to be displaced anytime soon, the best we can hope for is to make the process more transparent and open, more reflective of the interests of Science and scientists, and less of the for-profit journal industry. I highly doubt that the problem will be solved by "science startups." There are large non-profit interests as well, I expect the progress to be made by individual scientists, universities, and professional organizations who have an interest in destroying the status quo.

mturmon 14y ago

Indeed, the post completely overlooks conferences, which in many fast-moving disciplines (most of CS, e.g.) are really the main venue for presenting new work, superseding journal publications. Think ICML or NIPS in machine learning -- 6 months apart. I question the need for a for-profit enterprise like the one the author promotes inserting itself into the research enterprise. Publishers are bad enough.