From this post on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s site. As a journal editor, I’m worried about the details of how you would get peer review into the process. The notion of using an upward filtration process doesn’t satisfy. You need expert peers to make the initial decision. What’s being proposed here is something more akin to a popularity contest.
On the other hand, I’m convinced that some of the intellectual content posted on some blogs is worthy of publication in peer reviewed journals. We just haven’t figured out how to get there. In the meantime, there’s always Arts and Letters Daily.
In this superb blog posting, Michael Clark argues that given what the Web was invented for (to facilitate the communication of scientific knowledge) what’s shocking is how non-disruptive the Net has been apropos scientific publishing.
It’s no secret to loyal readers that I’m an avid reader of the blog Effect Measure which generally deals with public health issues such as swine flu. But today’s blog entry over there really nails an important issue about how science is published and what “good scientific taste” is really all about. As an editor of a 100+ year old journal myself, I take umbrage at the notion that the only good science is that published in the likes of Science or Nature.
Read today’s Effect Measure blog entry and enjoy!