Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
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

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,...


Steven Andresen: "James I would be interested to read your account of the emergence of aims..." in Alternative Models of...

Steven Andresen: "James I would be interested to read your account of the emergence of aims..." in Alternative Models of...

Pentcho Valev: "I hesitated for a while but in the end didn't find a way to combine physics..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

Steve Agnew: "Yes. Aethertime is my own interpretation of the universe in terms of the..." in The Race to Replace the...

Juan Guerrero: "Your idea probably deserves some attention as it is plausible. After..." in Faster than Light

Sybil La Cartney: "well the key to writing a bestseller is simple - have some skills and know..." in Retrocausality,...

Robert McEachern: ""As preposterous as it sounds, the idea is largely grounded in accepted..." in Review of “A Big Bang...

Wilhelmus Wilde: "Dear Brendan, I just have a little doubt about the rating of some..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

click titles to read articles

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.

Untangling Quantum Causation
Figuring out if A causes B should help to write the rulebook for quantum physics.

February 22, 2017

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 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 'T' and 'V':

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