http://landshape.org/enm/wish-list-for-science-journals/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://landshape.org/enm/wish-list-for-science-journals/#comment-774 davids99us Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:14:50 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2973#comment-774 Yes, it would be useful to synthesise comments across various parts of the net, which is what Google does of course, but somehow more structured. Yes, it would be useful to synthesise comments across various parts of the net, which is what Google does of course, but somehow more structured.

]]> http://landshape.org/enm/wish-list-for-science-journals/#comment-773 davids99us Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:14:50 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2973#comment-773 Yes, it would be useful to synthesise comments across various parts of the net, which is what Google does of course, but somehow more structured. Yes, it would be useful to synthesise comments across various parts of the net, which is what Google does of course, but somehow more structured.

]]> http://landshape.org/enm/wish-list-for-science-journals/#comment-11828 Anonymous Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:14:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2973#comment-11828 Yes, it would be useful to synthesise comments across various parts of the net, which is what Google does of course, but somehow more structured. Yes, it would be useful to synthesise comments across various parts of the net, which is what Google does of course, but somehow more structured.

]]> http://landshape.org/enm/wish-list-for-science-journals/#comment-772 garyboden Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:28:08 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2973#comment-772 How about a repository for ex post facto commentary on published papers? Interested responders (amateur and professionally trained) could post criticisms and questions for the authors. The goal would be to collect ideas for improvements (and possibly corrections) and extending the research. Obviously "discussions" could get quite heated if it were like a blog, so one option is to require registration (for follow-up contact by the author, if desired). Another idea is moderation, but the cost of that may be high. How about a repository for ex post facto commentary on published papers? Interested responders (amateur and professionally trained) could post criticisms and questions for the authors. The goal would be to collect ideas for improvements (and possibly corrections) and extending the research. Obviously “discussions” could get quite heated if it were like a blog, so one option is to require registration (for follow-up contact by the author, if desired). Another idea is moderation, but the cost of that may be high.

]]> http://landshape.org/enm/wish-list-for-science-journals/#comment-11821 Anonymous Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:28:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=2973#comment-11821 How about a repository for ex post facto commentary on published papers? Interested responders (amateur and professionally trained) could post criticisms and questions for the authors. The goal would be to collect ideas for improvements (and possibly corrections) and extending the research. Obviously "discussions" could get quite heated if it were like a blog, so one option is to require registration (for follow-up contact by the author, if desired). Another idea is moderation, but the cost of that may be high. How about a repository for ex post facto commentary on published papers? Interested responders (amateur and professionally trained) could post criticisms and questions for the authors. The goal would be to collect ideas for improvements (and possibly corrections) and extending the research. Obviously “discussions” could get quite heated if it were like a blog, so one option is to require registration (for follow-up contact by the author, if desired). Another idea is moderation, but the cost of that may be high.

]]>