An impetuous rush behind the publications according to the phrase “publish or perish ” which is warmed up by money , can lead to a large-scale falsifications of research results, this is observed in China (Jane Qiu. Publish or Perish in China//Nature. – 2010. – Vol. 453, 14 January) (see also discussion: Tek Jung Mahat “ Issue of Plagiarism in scientific writings”). Very often, we observe the exaggerated research fronts which are warmed up by interests of the big capital, inaccessible clusters of high-impact journal in which authors quote each other(see also discussion: Janos Toth “Authors citation cartel ”). At the present time, when the processes of production, analysis and dissemination of scientific knowledge is under the control of neo-liberal forces , we are not capable to control the quality of this knowledge. It seems that the existing paradigm of formal scientific communications which originates from the 17th century exhausted itself. This gave an origin to a new paradigm in scientific communications -«Liquid publications». What is your opinion about the prospects of liquid publications? Will they be supported by the scientific community in the near time?
Could you perhaps elaborate on "liquid publication" or link to some resources? What I found on the web is rather abstract and describes only the goals. These goals -- faster publication, collaborative research, better credit attribution -- are in my opinion easy to agree to. I'd be interested how these goals should be reached in practice.
It's like saying "everybody should earn more money". The interesting question is how that's to be achieved and what could be the effects, wanted and unwanted.
Explanations, purposes and some mechanisms of the new paradigm were well described by Fabio Casati on the interview “New paradigm for scientific publication and peer review” with the magazine “Research EU” (2010,№ 27 ,September ).
The magazine is placed in open access.
The introduction of this paradigm in practice is done by Liquid Publication consortium (http://project.liquidpub.org/)
I thnk the open and the closed are two different worlds with different paradigm.
All the information is like a waterfall. We need very selective and sensible minds to make the selection.
Neuroscience is searching for a new paradigm (that's how I came here along) but nothing is still set about the basic of our thinking, feeling and consciousness.
It all sounds very interesting but unfortunately I am unable to access the links you provided. The liquidpub.org domain appears to have been recently taken over by an online shopping consortium. Googling "liquid pub" directs me to a website for a nightclub in the UK. The one link I found to liquid pub on Twitter returns a message stating "An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later." None of which inspires much confidence in the project. I am now curious to hear whether in fact these issues are due to the inertia of the project organizers or whether more sinister forces are at play.
See PKB (Public Knoweledge Project) on Wiki (pcp.sfu.ca/wiki/index.php/Liquid_Publishing); Liquid Publication: Scientific Publications meet the Web (eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1313/) with Pdf-file; Chapter "Design of the Liquid Publications Integrated Platform" (Marcos Baez placed on RG, June 7 2013); Sujith Eranezhath " Should we move to Liquid Publishing and post publication open review?" (discussion on RG, November 16 2012) and use the possibilities of Google Scholar (test terms: Liquid Publication(s), Liquid Publishing).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology