The “sting” operation published in Science Magazine claims to highlight corruption in the open access model, but it’s actually about problems with peer review — even if Science claims otherwise.
Peer evaluation is the most important tool for quality control in research, but it needs to be better. Here are thirteen suggestions to include in a new system of Open Evaluation.
We’re engaged in science for the service of society, and we can only deliver on that mission if we use all available tools to assure the quality of our results.
The way we publish will continue changing, radically and disruptively. Some features from Wikipedia could inspire us in our quest for better ways to disseminate scientific results.
