Bradley Monakhos 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Contents |
Yeah, finally updated the news page. The header formatting is a bit off, though (putting author as "pen name" and unsightly space between heading and teaser text). I'll leave that to the webwhiz webmaster, eh?
Another portal to add.
Is this getting out of hand, or what? I was thinking today about how this started out as a site to come for informative articles and scientific discourse, and now we're hoping for nothing short of a revolution in scientific communication. Dream big, I guess.
So here is a thought: What if, instead of having our submitted aticles peer reviewed by two or three select individuals before it passes muster for "publication," we had authors submit their articles to the site, and EVERYBODY would review it. That is, no one is required to review it, but anybody can add comments to the manuscript with concerns, suggestions for follow up work or experiments to clarify sticky points in the paper, musings on the authors interpretations and whether their data supports their assertions, etc. All of these comments can then be ranked (or dugg) by other users. This way, we can come to a collective consensus about the quality of the work and what modifications the author may need to address, and which ones are just bogus. This style would:
The pitfalls are that reviews may not be as in depth as before, and with anonymity gone, some reviewers may not feel comfortable criticizing others work. Of course, this process could work just as well if users had the option of leaving anonymous feedback. (But leaving quality feedback would be a great way to establish yourself as a reliable, competent name in the field).
Now that I think about it, I really see no better option. This is the way to go. But the ranking system (or something similar) must be in place for it to work.
Looks good, my man. At least one of the links is 'stuck' (i.e., doesn't load the journal). Text blurb is great. Just a tweak or two:
OneSci is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal freely accessible to science researchers and the general public. It publishes original research, applications, and reviews in all areas of science. Our online gateway combines the security of a printed journal with the look and familiarity of a wiki, thus promoting active discussion among authors, reviewers, and readers alike.
Authors are encouraged to submit complete, unpublished, and original works, which are reviewed for scientific merit alone.
OneSci offers several unique publishing portals beyond scientific articles, including portals for publishing research posters presented at scientific conferences, and for methods/protocols employed during the scientific research process. OneSci authors are also invited to contribute to our science newspaper - The Axon (link?)
Oh, and make sure you hyphenate 'peer-reviewed" and "open-access" at the top of the main page (and anytime either of these come before a noun).
You know, I just thought how ridiculous this is - I mean, if someone submits a chemistry article, we're fucked (for now)! And how are we gonna be certain that our reviewers are competent or even reading the articles we give them, especially if it's in an area of science we are largely unfamiliar with? Maybe I'm just intimidated by the complexity of all this before us. I love the ambition, but feeling a bit overwhelmed!
Also, I think we should focus on building up the poster portion of the site. I mean, much more likely to get those kind of submissions first, and this will greatly boost the credibility and usefulness of the site (hopefully making onesci a legitimate target for full on article submission in the minds of our audience).
That we should collaborate on. Think you'll be quite interested. Maybe you'd like to chime in where I left off...
Nice job adding your perspective (and providing the real intellectual contribution that I was too lazy - I mean busy - to do). I think this little piece is a good intro to our philosophy, and thus of paramount importance to our site. So, if you don't mind, I'm gonna exercise my editor in chief title and edit to make that mo fo a potent little bomb. I think you edited off an earlier version of my contribution that I had since cleaned up, so I'll start there. Oh, and I'm still holding back on recruiting (but I do have a short list of those I'd like to invite once we've worked out some of our kinks. Like I said, I want people to feel like this is something real, something well thought out, and something with fucking legs! We're getting there!)
Man, getting the articles to format properly on the axon news page can be a real bitch.
New Section