WED NOV 18 INLS 151

Jonathan Eisen & Nick Shockey PLOS Public Library of Science

INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE! INFORMATION IS NOT “FREE” – IT IS A COMMODITY! OTHER OPTIONS

"And the consequences are severe. Many physicians and health care providers lack access to basic medical research, as do students and teachers at high schools and small colleges who must resort to textbooks or Wikipedia rather than the primary research literature.” I have never really thought about the implications of the system in regards to research, access and publication. But upon reading this particular quote, I could not help but question the intentions of the publisher. If "health care providers lack access to basic medical research" and "teachers must resort to textbooks" then essentially, what is the genuine purpose of research. To me, it almost looks like an economic venture, as opposed to a system that serves to aid in the progression of our world. -Micheline

"The truth is that peer review as practiced in the 21st century poisons science. It is conservative, cumbersome, capricious, and intrusive...Even the supposedly more rigorous standards of the elite journals fail to prevent flawed papers from appearing in their pages.” What would be the preferred alternative to having papers peer-reviewed? Would having papers available to be reviewed and edited by anyone (or almost anyone), similar to open-source technology, be a better alternative? -Maudrie I don't think that having articles reviewed by the masses is a good idea. I think it poses a problem similar to that of Wikipedia, where all the information is not necessarily true. How do you check the credentials of the masses? People may consider themselves experts on a particular matter, but may in fact be nothing close to being an expert. -Katie As an alternative to traditional peer-review via "prestigious" academic journals, Michael Eisen proposes that all research be published freely online to be used and reviewed by anyone who wants to use it. Are there any flaws to this proposal? Can you think of a better alternative to make free information and research more available to the public? -Kate

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

I find it interesting that the introduction of the Internet has not had a more immediate impact on the academic research and journal industry. I think that the Internet provides a solution to the issue that has long plagued Journals, which is the turnaround time problem. I think that it is important to allow for almost instant publication, especially in fields such as Information Science, which is constantly changing. Instead, fields such as Information Science forgo the traditional journal path in favor of conferences where presentations and papers are presented and the proceedings are then recorded and published. Although this model shortens the turnaround time of research, it is still more lengthy than the Internet alternative. My question then is this: Why have fields such as Information Science not lead the way for open and instant publishing through the internet? -Josh

Institutional Repositories

Reading the "science wants to be free" article, the author makes note that universities need to change their systems so that journal publications aren't the only way professors can secure jobs and tenure. While the journal system still has its merits, I can't help but wonder why universities aren't leading the way into moving towards open access and utilizing cheaper internet means to promote scientific research and publication. -Michaela The author instead offers that the publishers should be paid a fee for their services and that the articles should then be open to the public for free. By implementing this idea, could that not possibly reduce the prestige of certain articles? The system of journals helps establish a hierarchy in the science world and if all the articles were just freely available to the public there would be no differential in the value of one over the other. -Jenny

So what would be better? Eisen suggests: The outlines of an ideal system are simple. There should be no journal hierarchy, only broad journals like PLOS ONE. When papers are submitted, they should immediately be made available online for free—clearly marked as not yet reviewed, but there to be used by people in the field who are capable of deciding on their own whether the work is sound and important. The journal would then organize a different type of peer review, in which experts are asked about a paper’s technical soundness—as we currently do at PLOS ONE—and about its appropriate scientific audience and its relative importance. This assessment would then be attached to the paper, there for everyone to see.

I also wonder if there would be a way to make the publishers part of the NIH or other type of organization that grants this money to the public, and that way it becomes a sort of cycle in which researchers applied for grants, and grants are given on the terms that they publish their work with a particle journal or so on. -Katie why do universities not make a larger effort to uproot the system and create a new method for information access? -Ben a new way of presenting research material in a digital journal (with the advantage of hyperlink text). The 3-D multi-plane model that allows for the raw data, interactive graphs, videos, demonstrations, etc. -Kaitlin

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency NIH is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world

directive

Team MembersTopic Presentation Date Josh, Michelle & SamanthaVoting behavior + demographicsNov 23 Katie, Lucas, Jenny & Duncan Voting behavior + source of news information + demographics Nov 23 MichaelaEnvironmental concerns + ageNov 23 KaitlinAttitude toward right to die and genderNov 23 Chris, Ben & RyanFamily income and general happinessNov 23 Mel’leeah, Aaron, Winta & Micheline Age at parenthood and general happinessNov 30 Rashaad, Chase, Alexis & Abigail Attitude toward legalization of marijuana and age Nov 30 Travis, Thomas & Michael Belief in an afterlife + gender + general happiness Nov 30 Maudrie, Kate, Yunhan & Wanyi Attitude toward capital punishment, gender + political party affiliation Nov 30 Presentation options: Mon Nov 23; Mon Nov 30