Oops! I had left a setting to restrict comments to registered readers only on. It’s now off, so comment away, all you myriads (yeah, right) of readers.
Michele Boldrin and David Levine’s book against intellectual monopoly. Highly provocative, and a good antidote to a lot of stuff that comes too easily out of economists’ mouths. Michele and I overlapped in our graduate student days at the University of Rochester.
OK, now that I’ve got a few of you with a new Gmail account, here’s some information on how to make good use of it. I’m sure to peruse this well in a few seconds myself.
Gmail tips page (originally from Digg).
OK, so now everybody can see this blog. I saw that the “by invitation” approach forced people to get a Gmail account, and that’s a small hassle. Further, the RSS feed and posting to the blog from Google Docs did not work.
So I had to overcome the dread of overmuch publicity and publish the blog for all to see.
Why write a blog for just a few intimates? Doesn’t it defeat the purpose of blogs and the web?
Well, I am just taking advantage of the free blogger service from Google, so I can easily share with you all the stuff I think interesting from my web excursions. I know MM, for one, would like this, as I can serve as a filter of the immense ocean of the web for her. Why not for some more people then? If you’re reading this, drop a comment below to let me know just how silly the whole thing is, or not.
“Despite enthusiasm for the concept, open peer review was not widely popular, either among authors or by scientists invited to comment.”
It’s too bad, as a lot of people, myself included, had high hopes for this experiment.
The conclusion, from the article:
“Despite the significant interest in the trial, only a small proportion of authors opted to participate. There was a significant level of expressed interest in open peer review among those authors who opted to post their manuscripts openly and who responded after the event, in contrast to the views of the editors. A small majority of those authors who did participate received comments, but typically very few, despite significant web traffic. Most comments were not technically substantive. Feedback suggests that there is a marked reluctance among researchers to offer open comments.
Nature and its publishers will continue to explore participative uses of the web. But for now at least, we will not implement open peer review.”