Biocurious is a weblog about biology through the eyes of physicists. More...
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
Evolgen
Freelancing Science
The Futile Cycle
Good Math, Bad Math
iMechanica
in singulo
Incoherently Scattered Ponderings
Juniorprof
Life of a Lab Rat
The Loom
Malletrivia
Metadatta
Mixed States
Not Even Wrong
Notes from the biomass
Notional Slurry
OpenScience Project
Pharyngula
PLoS Blog
Ponderings of a fool
Recombinants
The Sandwalk
SciAm Observations
ScienceBlogs
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.