Already a member? Log in

Sign up with your...

or

Sign Up with your email address

Add Tags

Duplicate Tags

Rename Tags

Share It With Others!

Save Link

Sign in

Sign Up with your email address

Sign up

By clicking the button, you agree to the Terms & Conditions.

Forgot Password?

Please enter your username below and press the send button.
A password reset link will be sent to you.

If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Links 1 through 10 of 11 by Charlie Schick tagged journal

"Rejecta Mathematica, which is online only and open access, has some simple rules for publication. Papers had to be submitted for peer review at one or more other journals, and they had to have been rejected, either by the journal's editors or the paper's reviewers. The papers authors could then send a letter that describes the reason for rejection, along with the paper itself, to Rejecta, which would publish both as a single document."

I've always wanted a Journal for Irreproducible Results or something. This isn't exactly that but the intention is there, and it's a (gnat's) bite in the butt of big sci-publishing. Alas, the implementation may seem a bit too permissive.

Share It With Others!

Hmmm...

"The Omics Gateway provides life scientists a convenient portal into publications relevant to large-scale biology from journals throughout NPG. By organizing our papers and web focus projects on large-scale biology into this comprehensive, regularly updated, one-stop web portal, we hope to help you quickly reach the resources you need to study the -ome of your choice and to keep you up-to-date with the most significant research in that area."

via @genegeek

Share It With Others!

Ok. Not enthused by the "2.0" moniker (though this was published in 2008). But I am happy to see others thinking the same things as I have been. Just wished I'd seen this back then.

"Scientific American calls it science2.0. They write: A small but growing number of researchers (and not just the younger ones) have begun to carry out their work via the wide-open tools of Web 2.0. And although their efforts are still too scattered to be called a movement—yet—their experiences to date suggest that this kind of Web-based “Science 2.0” is not only more collegial than traditional science but considerably more productive."

Share It With Others!

The rise of electronic publishing, preprint archives, blogs, and wikis is raising concerns among publishers, editors, and scientists about the present day relevance of academic journals and traditional peer review.

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT