Comments on: Open Science, what is your message?

By: Pawel Szczesny

Pawel Szczesny — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:25:23 +0000

Daniel, thanks. I wouldn’t put it better than you did . And I’ve corrected “cheaper”.

Thanks Bill – too bad people still follow Yalow’s advice.

By: bill

bill — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:21:02 +0000

I particularly like the emphasis on the way that Open Science can break down artificial barriers to participation like the ones Yalow apparently favours.

Data are data, whether they were produced by a Nobel Laureate or some kid in a garage somewhere — Ivory Tower assholes can exclude *people* for stupid reasons but they ignore actual *data* at their peril.

By: Daniel Mietchen

Daniel Mietchen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:16:32 +0000

Although we should be aware that “cheaper science” has negative connotations, so we should perhaps express this concept with different words, stressing the “connected” aspect also in the West: after all, the web does not only connect across nations but also across disciplines, age groups and economic sectors much more than traditional means of science communication.

By: Daniel Mietchen

Daniel Mietchen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:11:53 +0000

I agree and have put it quite similarly in here: "Given that a rating system implemented in our public research environment would almost certainly be less expensive than classical committee-based peer review of grant proposals (most online platforms can be used at no or low cost, no travel costs are incurred by the process, and all the effort spent on reviewing — currently often lost to society, particularly if a manuscript or proposal is rejected — could be used immediately by anyone), the new system would represent an improvement with respect to the current one, even if neither the quality of the research, nor the speed of communicating the results were affected. But both are bound to improve in the new system, leaving more money in the research funding system that can actually be spent on research than this is currently the case."