Ever since I made the switch to Linux, I’ve been rabidly enthusiastic about all things open-source.  I know how I feel if given the choice between Firefox and [insert name of other browser here], but this concept would seem to require much deeper consideration.

“The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only ‘if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.'”

What do you think the future holds for “open science?”  If an active “open science” community makes a thorough effort to ensure methodologically sound and reproducible research, how might the results be different from existing publication standards?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a reply