Improving science through online commentary
1
Sir — Progress in science depends on public debate and criticism of ideas. Unfortunately, debate is largely restricted to four domains: conferences, private conversations, journal clubs and peer-reviewed publications. The first three channels tend to be too private and ephemeral to help the community at large. Publication in journals runs on a timescale of months and, unless people bring new data, they are lucky to be allowed into the debate at all. This slow communi- cation hampers progress. Most people do not know other scientists’ views on published manuscripts. When a new paper appears, readers often spot logical flaws, experimental weaknesses, questionable assumptions or alternative interpretations. Yet individual criticisms may not be considered important enough to warrant publication. Even major criticisms are unlikely to appear until months or years later, and are often overlooked in the haystacks of the literature. Scientists even miss official retractions, continuing to cite withdrawn data accidentally. We propose a simple solution. Each record in publication databases (such as the US National Library of Medicine’s PubMed) should have a link for adding scientific commentary: essentially the electronic version of a Post-it note. The submitter of a comment would be required to provide his or her name, e-mail address, a short communication and potentially a password (for later editing or deletion). Insights, criticism, replications and non- replications could be posted. The benefits of this system would include: immediate free and open debate of scientific ideas and results; easy dissemi- nation of non-replications and negative results; a reduction in wild-goose chases by researchers unaware of others’ insights into a published paper; and posting of links to subsequent papers that provide important verifications or contradictions. The attachment of commentary to databases has been successful in other areas. Users can add ‘Post-em’ links to a public-domain genealogy database, the Social Security Death Index (http://ssdi. genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi). Readers attach reviews to books in Amazon.com’s database. Since we desire our proposal to be practical and inexpensive, there would be no human gatekeeper. To avoid abuse, we suggest that unhelpful or libellous notes could be reported to a removal moderator, who would decide whether to eliminate them. To prevent milder forms of abuse, Amazon.com asks: “Was this review helpful to you?” Answers are tallied to give a sense of how the community values the comment. Automatic advertisement posting can be prevented by a requirement to key in a text code readable only by humans. Given the importance of peer-reviewed publications to their careers (see P. Lawrence Nature 422, 259–261; 2003), will researchers freely provide their insights without any career benefit? They already do. During the peer-review process, most scientists spend a lot of time providing insights to a very few people. Posting a note would benefit the whole community and take very little time. A handful of journals have begun experiments in ‘open’ peer review online (see T. Gura Nature 416, 258; 2002). This operates on a journal-by-journal basis, whereas our proposed post-publication commentary process should be centralized and independent of the journal of public- ation. For example, the commentaries on biological and medical papers should be stored in a single database under the free- access, disinterested aegis of the US National Library of Medicine. We believe that this simple, practical idea could substantially speed the practice and progress of science. We address further issues and welcome feedback at www.cnl. salk.edu/~eagleman/postit. David M. Eagleman*, Alex O. Holcombe† *Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California 92037, USA [email protected] †Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA [email protected] correspondence NATURE | VOL 423 | 1 MAY 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 15 Improving science through online commentary The Internet offers a timely opportunity to widen, and reduce delays in, scientific debate. Oil and war: we had the warning 30 years ago Sir — The other night, I was looking for an article in Nature from 1973 when the volume fell open to an editorial, “What future for energy?” (Nature 242, 357–358; 1973). I quote the closing part: “…there is every prospect that the immediate problems of energy scarcity could be brought within control in the measurable future. Fuller use of the price mechanism and more resolute decision-making by the Federal Government are urgently necessary, but could make the immediate “crisis” go away. By the 1990s, however, the United States will have more serious problems to contend with. It now seems clear that the annual import bill for petroleum products is bound to increase steadily, and the chances are that even by 1980, the United States will be spending $20,000 million a year (or more if there are further devalu- ations of the dollar) on imported crude petroleum. Numerically, this expenditure is not insupportable, but there are political snags. The Administration is, for example, alarmed at the prospect that so much cash will find its way into the hands of Arab states which have no automatic sympathy with United States policy in the Middle East — rather the reverse — and which could use their holdings of the large quantities of dollars as a way of manipu- lating the international currency market. But even this is not an entirely unwelcome prospect, for at the very least it will create a climate in which some lasting political settlement in the Middle East will seem to everybody desirable. And here, luckily, there is plenty of time in which the United States can prepare the ground for a lasting policy. To be sure, in the meantime it will be prudent also to pursue as vigorously as possible the technical means by which other sources of energy might be exploited, and no doubt there is much to be done to make use of geothermal steam and solar energy. But the problem of the 1990s is already definable and is largely political in character. It is to be hoped that the United States will not let that blow up into a crisis for lack of resolution in the next few years.” Thirty years later, the Israeli–Palestinian situation could not be worse. War in Iraq has cost thousands of lives during the past few weeks. Republicans in the US Congress recently fell just two votes short of passing legislation that would allow oilfields to be drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on Alaska’s North Slope, and the president vowed to redouble efforts to open the refuge to drilling. There have been no significant investments in new energy technologies, and no break- throughs in technologies or new sources. The perspective offered by your stunning, telling editorial in 1973 provides some important, albeit expensive, lessons. Michael D. Jennings Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, and Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, PO Box 441136, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1136, USA The author of the editorial was John Maddox, then Editor of Nature — Editor, Correspondence © 2003 Nature Publishing Group
Transcript of Improving science through online commentary
Sir — Progress in science depends on publicdebate and criticism of ideas. Unfortunately,debate is largely restricted to four domains:conferences, private conversations, journalclubs and peer-reviewed publications. Thefirst three channels tend to be too privateand ephemeral to help the community atlarge. Publication in journals runs on atimescale of months and, unless peoplebring new data, they are lucky to be allowedinto the debate at all. This slow communi-cation hampers progress. Most people do not know other scientists’ views onpublished manuscripts. When a new paperappears, readers often spot logical flaws,experimental weaknesses, questionableassumptions or alternative interpretations.Yet individual criticisms may not beconsidered important enough to warrantpublication. Even major criticisms areunlikely to appear until months or yearslater, and are often overlooked in thehaystacks of the literature. Scientists evenmiss official retractions, continuing to citewithdrawn data accidentally.
We propose a simple solution. Eachrecord in publication databases (such asthe US National Library of Medicine’sPubMed) should have a link for addingscientific commentary: essentially theelectronic version of a Post-it note. Thesubmitter of a comment would be requiredto provide his or her name, e-mail address,a short communication and potentially apassword (for later editing or deletion).Insights, criticism, replications and non-replications could be posted.
The benefits of this system wouldinclude: immediate free and open debateof scientific ideas and results; easy dissemi-nation of non-replications and negativeresults; a reduction in wild-goose chases byresearchers unaware of others’ insightsinto a published paper; and posting oflinks to subsequent papers that provideimportant verifications or contradictions.
The attachment of commentary todatabases has been successful in otherareas. Users can add ‘Post-em’ links to apublic-domain genealogy database, theSocial Security Death Index (http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi).Readers attach reviews to books inAmazon.com’s database.
Since we desire our proposal to bepractical and inexpensive, there would beno human gatekeeper. To avoid abuse, wesuggest that unhelpful or libellous notescould be reported to a removal moderator,who would decide whether to eliminatethem. To prevent milder forms of abuse,Amazon.com asks: “Was this review
helpful to you?” Answers are tallied to givea sense of how the community values thecomment. Automatic advertisement postingcan be prevented by a requirement to key ina text code readable only by humans.
Given the importance of peer-reviewedpublications to their careers (see P. LawrenceNature 422, 259–261; 2003), will researchersfreely provide their insights without anycareer benefit? They already do. During thepeer-review process, most scientists spenda lot of time providing insights to a very fewpeople. Posting a note would benefit thewhole community and take very little time.
A handful of journals have begunexperiments in ‘open’ peer review online(see T. Gura Nature 416, 258; 2002). Thisoperates on a journal-by-journal basis,whereas our proposed post-publicationcommentary process should be centralized
and independent of the journal of public-ation. For example, the commentaries onbiological and medical papers should bestored in a single database under the free-access, disinterested aegis of the USNational Library of Medicine.
We believe that this simple, practicalidea could substantially speed the practiceand progress of science. We address furtherissues and welcome feedback at www.cnl.salk.edu/~eagleman/postit.David M. Eagleman*, Alex O. Holcombe† *Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California 92037, [email protected]†Department of Psychology, University ofCalifornia, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, [email protected]
correspondence
NATURE | VOL 423 | 1 MAY 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 15
Improving science through online commentary The Internet offers a timely opportunity to widen, and reduce delays in, scientific debate.
Oil and war: we had thewarning 30 years agoSir — The other night, I was looking for an article in Nature from 1973 when thevolume fell open to an editorial, “Whatfuture for energy?” (Nature 242, 357–358;1973). I quote the closing part: “…there isevery prospect that the immediate problemsof energy scarcity could be brought withincontrol in the measurable future. Fulleruse of the price mechanism and moreresolute decision-making by the FederalGovernment are urgently necessary, butcould make the immediate “crisis” goaway. By the 1990s, however, the UnitedStates will have more serious problems tocontend with. It now seems clear that theannual import bill for petroleum productsis bound to increase steadily, and thechances are that even by 1980, the UnitedStates will be spending $20,000 million ayear (or more if there are further devalu-ations of the dollar) on imported crudepetroleum. Numerically, this expenditureis not insupportable, but there are politicalsnags. The Administration is, for example,alarmed at the prospect that so much cashwill find its way into the hands of Arabstates which have no automatic sympathywith United States policy in the MiddleEast — rather the reverse — and whichcould use their holdings of the largequantities of dollars as a way of manipu-lating the international currency market.But even this is not an entirely unwelcomeprospect, for at the very least it will create aclimate in which some lasting politicalsettlement in the Middle East will seem to
everybody desirable. And here, luckily,there is plenty of time in which the UnitedStates can prepare the ground for a lastingpolicy. To be sure, in the meantime it willbe prudent also to pursue as vigorously as possible the technical means by whichother sources of energy might be exploited,and no doubt there is much to be done tomake use of geothermal steam and solarenergy. But the problem of the 1990s isalready definable and is largely political incharacter. It is to be hoped that the UnitedStates will not let that blow up into a crisisfor lack of resolution in the next few years.”
Thirty years later, the Israeli–Palestiniansituation could not be worse. War in Iraqhas cost thousands of lives during the pastfew weeks. Republicans in the US Congressrecently fell just two votes short of passinglegislation that would allow oilfields to bedrilled in the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge on Alaska’s North Slope, and thepresident vowed to redouble efforts toopen the refuge to drilling. There havebeen no significant investments in newenergy technologies, and no break-throughs in technologies or new sources.
The perspective offered by yourstunning, telling editorial in 1973 providessome important, albeit expensive, lessons.Michael D. JenningsDonald Bren School of Environmental Science andManagement, University of California, Santa Barbara,and Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources,University of Idaho, PO Box 441136, Moscow,Idaho 83844-1136, USA
The author of the editorial was JohnMaddox, then Editor of Nature — Editor, Correspondence
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group
