
Science and Development Network
News, views and information about science, technology and the developing world
Source: Nature
1 May 2003 | EN
Progress in science depends on public debate and criticism of ideas. Such debate is largely restricted to four domains: conferences, private conversations, journal clubs and peer-reviewed publications.
In this letter to Nature, David Eagleman and Alex Holcombe argue that these communication channels are too restricted: the first three tend to be too private and ephemeral to help the community at large, and the latter runs on too slow a timescale and excludes many individuals.
They propose a solution: that each record in online publication databases should have a link for adding scientific commentary. This would allow immediate free and open debate of scientific ideas and easy dissemination of non-replications and negative results.
Source: Nature 423, 15 (2003)
All comments are subject to approval and we reserve the right to edit comments containing inappropriate/unsuitable language. SciDev.Net holds copyright for all material posted on the website. Please see terms of use for further details.
All SciDev.Net material is free to reproduce providing that the source and author are appropriately credited. For further details see Creative Commons.
16 February 2012