Dois artigos interessantes sobre o atual sistema de periódicos científicos

Também vale a pena ler os comentários em cada link:

• Artigo do New York Times:  Cracking Open the Scientific Process

By THOMAS LIN, January 16, 2012

The New England Journal of Medicine marks its 200th anniversary this year with a timeline celebrating the scientific advances first described in its pages: the stethoscope (1816), the use of ether for anesthesia (1846), and disinfecting hands and instruments before surgery (1867), among others.

For centuries, this is how science has operated — through research done in private, then submitted to science and medical journals to be reviewed by peers and published for the benefit of other researchers and the public at large. But to many scientists, the longevity of that process is nothing to celebrate.

The system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only “if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.” (…)

• Post do blog do Terence Tao:  The cost of knowledge
  

26 January, 2012 in advertising, opinion | Tags: Elsevier, politics, publishing | by Terence Tao

A few days ago, inspired by this recent post of Tim Gowers, a web page entitled “the cost of knowledge” has been set up as a location for mathematicians and other academics to declare a protest against the academic publishing practices of Reed Elsevier, (…)

Anúncios