With every revolution will come new challenges, though. Does this mean crackpot theories will have easier paths to fame? That problem already exists. Traditional journals publish wild ideas all the time, and some crackpot theories turn out to be mainstream (e.g., fractal geometry, plate tectonics, expanding universe). The right question is, who determines what is crackpot or not? What standards will determine scientific merit? How will they be maintained? Who owns science, anyway? It’s going to be an interesting sea that scientists set sail on.
With every revolution will come new challenges, though. Does this mean crackpot theories will have easier paths to fame? That problem already exists. Traditional journals publish wild ideas all the time, and some crackpot theories turn out to be mainstream (e.g., fractal geometry, plate tectonics, expanding universe). The right question is, who determines what is crackpot or not? What standards will determine scientific merit? How will they be maintained? Who owns science, anyway? It’s going to be an interesting sea that scientists set sail on.
Intelligent design is considered crackpot by Nature, Science and many other mainstream journal editors, but ID advocates (most with legitimate PhDs) who feel stymied by the consensus and power structure) consider the Darwinian trash that gets published weekly to be crackpot. Whether open access publishing opens the doors of the Darwin Dark Castle and lets in some fresh air remains to be seen.
Intelligent design is considered crackpot by Nature, Science and many other mainstream journal editors, but ID advocates (most with legitimate PhDs) who feel stymied by the consensus and power structure) consider the Darwinian trash that gets published weekly to be crackpot. Whether open access publishing opens the doors of the Darwin Dark Castle and lets in some fresh air remains to be seen.
“Every solution breeds new problems,” Peer’s Law says. We’ve seen this with Wikipedia. It sounded great. No more bookshelves with heavy tomes; just search on a keyword and presto! instant encyclopedia material online, peer reviewed by everyone! Problem: certain elements in society make it their mission in life to undo any changes to their opinions. ID advocates cannot fix outright lies before online censors immediately change them back. As a result, falsehoods endure with no way to correct them. In essence, the anti-ID censorship just shifted from journal editors to unemployed, self-proclaimed guardians wearing pajamas. Open access journals may face similar obstructions.
It’s worth a try anyway. It doesn’t seem like it can be any worse than the status quo. There’s always book publishing, another tried and true method that gave the world some of the greatest science of all time (e.g., Newton’s Principia). The free market allows for entrepreneurs to offer a better service than Wikipedia and sap its power, just like Facebook put MySpace out to pasture (now Google’s market dominance needs some competition, but people use it because they like what it provides). Big Music was horrified at the prospect of music downloads, but online access to music has revolutionized the way we buy entertainment, and most users are happy with all the new options. It has also brought great new talent to the surface that never would have seen the light of day by powerful corporations.
It’s worth a try anyway. It doesn’t seem like it can be any worse than the status quo. There’s always book publishing, another tried and true method that gave the world some of the greatest science of all time (e.g., Newton’s Principia). The free market allows for entrepreneurs to offer a better service than Wikipedia and sap its power, just like Facebook put MySpace out to pasture (now Google’s market dominance needs some competition, but people use it because they like what it provides). Big Music was horrified at the prospect of music downloads, but online access to music has revolutionized the way we buy entertainment, and most users are happy with all the new options. It has also brought great new talent to the surface that never would have seen the light of day by powerful corporations.
Traditional journals are for-profit businesses. They can’t pretend some kind of divine right to do things the old way; they need to go with the flow, to adjust to changing markets. Protectionism rarely works.
Traditional journals are for-profit businesses. They can’t pretend some kind of divine right to do things the old way; they need to go with the flow, to adjust to changing markets. Protectionism rarely works.
What do you think? Will open access publishing improve science? Will it open doors long closed to politically-incorrect views like intelligent design? How will the public recognize quality science and reject crackpot ideas? Will new power structures emerge? Will new problems with censorship outweigh the benefits, making us wish for the good old days? Can the open marketplace of ideas work in today’s highly-polarized world? Join the conversation; add your comments.
Throughout your body, cilia (protrusions on cells, singular cilium) are monitoring the environment and sweeping your passages clean.
Throughout your body, cilia (protrusions on cells, singular cilium) are monitoring the environment and sweeping your passages clean.
Live Science posted an article about cilia. The simple-looking hairlike projections on cells are anything but simple. “These hairs are tiny, but mighty,” the article began. Your life depends on them.
