By: David Eagleman and Alex Holcombe


We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

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.

Link to letter in Nature

Source: Nature 423, 15 (2003)

Related topics