Academics Andre's Research Biocuriosities Books Graduate School History of Science Hot off the Press Igor's Research Interdisciplinarity Molecule of the Month Open Access Philip's Research Philosophy of Science Physics Physicsworld.com
Backreaction Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics Cocktail Party Physics Cosmic Variance The Daily Transcript Easternblot Everyday Scientist The Evilutionary Biologist Freelancing Science The Futile Cycle Good Math, Bad Math iMechanica in singulo Incoherently Scattered Ponderings Juniorprof Klara Stefflova Life of a Lab Rat The Loom Metadatta Mixed States Morning Coffee Physics Not Even Wrong Notes from the biomass Notional Slurry OpenScience Project Pharyngula PLoS Blog Ponderings of a fool Recombinants The Sandwalk SciAm Observations ScienceBlogs Scientific Clearing House Shtetl-Optimized Three-toed Sloth Uncertain Principles What's New by Bob Park
“I’m prepared to bet a bottle of champagne to Chris a year from now as to whether or not that public discussion has taken off, but if it does, we’ll all be pleased.”
This is the bet put forth by Nature editor Philip Cambell to PLoS‘s Chris Surridge on a BBC Radio 4 piece on peer review and open discussion (0725). This, after admitting that Nature had already begun working on software to allow discussion of published articles in their flagship journal sometime in 2007.
It seems to me that you don’t go out of your way to create this kind of functionality if you expect it to fail, no matter how pleased you’d be if it didn’t. My prediction? The UK office of the Public Library of Science will be toasting the holidays with a fancy bottle of champagne at Nature’s expense next year.
Biocurious is written by Andre Brown and Philip Johnson, since 2005. Content of the weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
