Abstract

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2051047
 
 

References (90)



 
 

Citations (3)



 
 

Footnotes (12)



 


 



Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication


Brian A. Nosek


University of Virginia

Yoav Bar-Anan


Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

May 5, 2012

Psychological Inquiry, 2012

Abstract:     
Existing norms for scientific communication are rooted in anachronistic practices of bygone eras, making them needlessly inefficient. We outline a path that moves away from the existing model of scientific communication to improve the efficiency in meeting the purpose of public science – knowledge accumulation. We call for six changes: (1) full embrace of digital communication, (2) open access to all published research, (3) disentangling publication from evaluation, (4) breaking the “one article, one journal” model with a grading system for evaluation and diversified dissemination outlets, (5) publishing peer review, and, (6) allowing open, continuous peer review. We address conceptual and practical barriers to change, and provide examples showing how the suggested practices are being used already. The critical barriers to change are not technical or financial; they are social. While scientists guard the status quo, they also have the power to change it.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 61

Keywords: Science, Internet, Open Access, Values, Practices, Communication


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: May 4, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Nosek, Brian A. and Bar-Anan, Yoav, Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication (May 5, 2012). Psychological Inquiry, 2012. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2051047

Contact Information

Brian A. Nosek (Contact Author)
University of Virginia ( email )
1400 University Ave
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States
Yoav Bar-Anan
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev ( email )
1 Ben-Gurion Blvd
Beer-Sheba 84105, 84105
Israel
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,906
Downloads: 506
Download Rank: 42,220
References:  90
Citations:  3
Footnotes:  12
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper