Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Mozilla The Internet Science

Mozilla Launches Initiative To Adapt Scientific Practice To the Open Web 28

Posted by Soulskill
from the dead-trees-need-not-apply dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Today Mozilla announced the Mozilla Science Lab, a project to help modernize scientific practices to make better use of the open web. "Scientists created the web — but the open web still hasn't transformed scientific practice to the same extent we've seen in other areas like media, education and business. For all of the incredible discoveries of the last century, science is still largely rooted in the "analog" age. Credit systems in science are still largely based around "papers," for example, and as a result researchers are often discouraged from sharing, learning, reusing, and adopting the type of open and collaborative learning that the web makes possible.' Hopefully this can be another step in moving away from traditional publishing practices, and encourage a new generation of scientists to make their data available in more useful ways."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Launches Initiative To Adapt Scientific Practice To the Open Web

Comments Filter:
  • by countach44 (790998) on Friday June 14, 2013 @11:50AM (#44007697)
    One thing that would be great would be to fund studies that's sole purpose is to verify/reproduce someone else's work. Obviously, with the current state of funding, this really doesn't happen. Once something is published, we as the next researchers are forced to take results as fact - which may not be true due to error, low yield, or (hopefully not) fabrication [nytimes.com] of [nature.com] results [americanscientist.org] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct [wikipedia.org]).

    I really do believe that incentivizing verification of results and repeat studies (with reasonable limits, of course) would improve scientific research tremendously. However, it's even less likely to take hold than moving away from "publish or perish."

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser