Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 7/3/07 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Although physicists were first to the open access game with arXiv,...

Antony Lisi: on 6/21/07 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote Nature (the magazine, not the universe) recently unveiled their new, open,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "While that may be true, Rob, we are continually finding more sophisticated..." in Quantum Coherence =...

Robert McEachern: "Tom, Your essay concludes with: "If reality is objective and not..." in Quantum Coherence =...

Zeeya Merali: "This month’s podcast is jam-packed, thanks to all the huge physics..." in New Podcast: Pluto,...

John Cox: "Gary, You are correct. More then that, the much publicized hype about the..." in Inferring the Limits on...

Georgina Woodward: "Dear Eckard, thank you for your comments. I don't see it as an attack on..." in Alternative Models of...

Eckard Blumschein: "Dear Georgina, Should RCIP RIP? I feel guilty because RCIP mentioned me,..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "I'm thinking that the time line might contradict your hypothesis. SR dates..." in Inferring the Limits on...

Zeeya Merali: "Dear Steve, I have just read your post, and I wanted to say that I am..." in In Praise of Physics...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Conjuring a Neutron Star from a Nanowire
Using tiny mechanical devices to create accelerations equivalent to 100 million times the Earth’s gravitational field—mimicking the arena of quantum gravity in the lab.

Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey)
The fuzziness of the quantum realm could arise from mathematical restrictions on what can ever be known.

The Quantum Thermodynamic Revolution
Combining theories of quantum information with the science of heat and energy transfer could lead to new technologies.

Face Off: Building a Toy Universe to Pit Quantum Theory Against Gravity
Using superconducting circuits to create a curved-spacetime analog with stronger gravity than our cosmos.

Is Gravity Time's Archer?
A new model argues the forces between particles in the early universe loosed time's arrow, creating temporal order from chaos.


FQXi BLOGS
July 30, 2015

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Open Source Science [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Jun. 21, 2007 @ 18:27 GMT
Nature (the magazine, not the universe) recently unveiled their new, open, online preprint archive:

Nature Precedings

It's intended to be the natural science equivalent to the physics arXiv. But since they've been able to build it from scratch, they've included many great features. Each "article" submission receives votes, tags, and comments added by readers. This is really great to see. The arXiv seems to have built up a lot of institutional inertia, and has been dragging its feet in implementing these features, even though people have been suggesting them for years. If this new Nature site is as successful as it looks like it's going to be, the arXiv will feel a lot more pressure to implement these things. I don't imagine physicists will enjoy being out-nerded by biologists for very long.

For an example of the new site in action, the currently most popular article is this one on Open Notebook Science. Appropriately enough, it's a power point presentation discussing the advantages of doing science out in the open -- specifically, the advantages of using a wiki as a research notebook. That's no surprise to me...

report post as inappropriate


wrote on Jul. 3, 2007 @ 22:02 GMT
Although physicists were first to the open access game with arXiv, biologists have recently caught on, as Garrett highlights with Nature Proceedings -- and as well with perhaps an even more exciting experiment called PLoS, short for Public Library of Science, at plos.org.

PLoS began approximately 5 years ago with a single open access, peer-reviewed online "journal" known as PLoS Biology; today, there are several PLoS publications, including PLoS Computational Biology. (Computational biologists share a surprising amount of mathematical methodology with cosmologists -- with more surely to come as the field matures.)

After successful rigorous peer review, scientists pay to have their articles instantly published in a PLoS journal (usually paid for with grants), but they retain all copyrights -- as long as they agree the work may be used by PLoS readership in any way possible (reading, downloading, modification (!), etc.). And because PLoS journal articles are accessed as easily and freely as going to the website, their "readership" is, theoretically at least, anyone.

Thus, the mission of PLoS differs somewhat from that of arXiv -- PLoS journals are peer-reviewed -- and from Nature Proceedings -- the Proceeding's parent company, Nature, is for-profit, but PLoS is resolutely non-profit. The PLoS position is that since most biological research is paid for by the taxpayer, taxpayers -- you and me -- should not have to pay to review the fruits of that research. Indeed.

The PLoS model seems to me, though I may be biased, to be a highly promising hybrid of open access and peer-reviewed science. PLoS-FQXi Cosmology, anyone?

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'G' and 'I':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.