Openscience is an antipattern


http://hellophd.com/2017/11/preprint-first-peer-review-later/

Hellopod.com is a scientific related podcast comparable to the german Openscienceradio. In the last episode #83 they discussed the advantages of preprint-publication and how it will improve the science process. The idea is, to change major elements in the traditional process and commenting papers like a blog and give the world access to research. But, in the radioshow the guest has admitted the some of the new and exciting ideas probably will not work. So called openpeer review, where the hole world can commenting existing paper isn’t working, and publication of new research results without discussing them with peer isn’t also a best practice. Perhaps, the new openaccess model works like the old one?

Let us clarify what the opposite of Openscience is. At first, the discussion about a paper isn’t done AFTER publication but before. That means, that with uploading a PDF file to a website in the internet the phase of commenting and add new ideas is over. The feedback of the peers must take place without they can read the final version. How this can be done? One possibility is to ask in general the community what they think about a research topic. A good place might be a scientific conference, a science-related online forum or a youtube-hangout. The author collects the feedback and creates a proposal, a small outline of the paper. This outline will be enriched by detailed text and formatted into a publication ready version.

In this kind of mindmodel, the journal who publishes a paper is not an enabler in scholarly communication but is more similar to an archive which preservers information. The place where discussion and revisiting takes place is not in the Gutenberg-galaxis but in physical places like schools, universities and companies. It is weird that the openaccess community tries to overcome the situation with faster communication and new places where paper are discussed. What exactly is wrong with early discussions before publishing? One explanation would be, that openscience is some form of anti-pattern. A process which will not work, and is promoted exactly of this reason.

Advertisements
https://trollheaven.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/openscience-is-an-antipattern/
trollheaven.wordpress.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-35
47091
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FXKRU6VGTFYJMZZAX3CGXVJD25CFTVR2
<urn:uuid:a053cfee-742a-49d0-a2ea-33edf20f8a11>
2019-08-18T22:39:15Z
192.0.78.13
text/html
sha1:UWONLXO3SJM24W2MUXMZZGGZCY4C5U7U
<urn:uuid:cee322a2-2f5e-461a-bd99-44980e833b80>
https://trollheaven.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/openscience-is-an-antipattern/
response
<urn:uuid:ddea2663-0494-4b55-a946-1aac61f0b9c0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-35
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-192.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/