Re: [SPARC-OpenData] Without the risk? Not taking a position on this myself ;), but Richard Smith (former  editor of BMJ) has been in the news again on this topic again - and I  thought I'd just pass this reference along as a result.    The New Your  Times did a piece on the broader topic of error in scientific  studies/publications.  Here's the quote: "The evidence against peer review keeps getting stronger," says Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, "while the evidence on the upside is weak." Yet peer review has become a sacred cow, largely because passing peer review confers great prestige - and often tenure. >^  Other Smith Links: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7111/759 Cheers, -Chad Heather Morrison wrote: > **  with apologies for cross-posting  ** > > One of the arguments used against OA - one of the many which seems to   > make sense at first, but is absolutely ludicrous when examined   > closely - is the idea that we cannot afford to take risks with the   > current system and its quality control (peer review). > > For anyone who has not done so, please go to Peter Murray-Rust's   > presentation at OAI4, Open Data in Science - Technical and Cultural   > Aspects - the video can be downloaded from: > http://indico.cern.ch/sessionDisplay.py?  > sessionId=9&slotId=0&confId=0514#2005-10-22 > > It's only half an hour.  Peter talks about the folly of focusing on   > the current system, created for the print-based world, when we have   > the technology to capture the data directly.  This open up whole new   > possibilities for e-research.  It also makes it possible to improve   > on accuracy - some of the human copying of data can actually create   > errors, for example, as compared to capturing the information   > directly from the instruments.  Peter demonstrates Oscar, a peer-  > review robot than does some aspects of peer review (for chemical   > compounds) - better than humans can.  He shows what a publication can   > and should look like nowadays - with chemical compounds that move   > about and show their interrelationships, rather than sitting   > statically on the page. > > If you have time, the other related presentations by Liz Lyons and   > Hans Pfeiffenberger are very much worth watching, too.  (As are all   > the OAI4 presentations). > > Given the tremendous potential for e-research - it is folly to focus   > on preserving the present paper-based system of publication.  Let's   > move on, quit focussing on a procedures that were the best for the   > paper-based past, and instead, focus on developing the means of   > scholarly communications that will allow us to do the most that we   > can for research, now and into the future. > > Heather Morrison > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > http://oalibrarian.blogspot.com > E-LIS Editor, http://eprints.rclis.org/, Canada > Heather's E-LIS:  http://tinyurl.com/c37yk > > ========== > > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >  The SPARC-OpenData Mail List. > To post, send your message to . > To unsubscribe, email to . > To switch to digest mode, email to . > Send administrative queries to . >