Neuroscience
Did you read the Nature article in December comparing Wikipedia to the Encyclopaedia Britannica? They compare several scientific entries from Wikipedia & Britannica & conclude that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries."
That was in December. A few weeks ago, Nature (to its credit), posted a (pdf) 20-page rebuttal by the Britannica folks which finds faults with the Nature study for several reasons. These include that Nature only looked at partial Britannica entries for some items, for not distinguishing between minor mistakes and major mistakes in counting the total number of errors in each entry, and that Nature didn't review the "free-lance" scientific reviewers' findings. Nature posted its own 2 page rebuttal in which they stand by their original research.
To me, the problems stem from two very different ways of conducting research: the scientific way and the reference-work way. The Britannica folks are mostly concerned that the Nature people ignored the value of the reference work of the Britannica (such as writing style and editing) while the Nature people would probably admit to being more concerned about the number of errors and don’t feel the need to distinguish between major & minor errors.
Also, to quote Paula Berinstein in the March issue of Searcher, "for many subjects, Wikipedia is good enough." I'd add, for everything else, there's Britannica.
- A Highlighted Blog At Nature
The Neurocritic has been mentioned as a highlighted blog at nature.com, along with Good Math, Bad Math. Check out some of the other blogs in the Nature Network and beyond. Of the major non-OA (open access) publishers, NPG has been ahead of the curve...
- Peer Review Trial And Debate At Nature
Omni Brain links to a new feature at Nature: a 3 month trial period of "open" peer review. For those who opt to submit their papers under this track, authors can choose to have their submissions posted on a preprint server for open comments, in parallel...
- Nature's Neuropod: New Edition Available
The October 2009 issue of Nature's NeuroPod podcast is available for listening and download. It can be found at NeuroPod homepage. This edition includes reports about gaming mice and the relation between sleep problems and memory function. From the...
- Mind & Brain Portal, From Wikipedia
Wikipedia may be controversial, but that's because some stuff is good & some stuff is, well, not reliable. That said, the Mind & Brain Portal (which I found through Sci Am Mind) is "an interdisciplinary point of entry to such related fields as the...
- Nature Neuro, Etc. Offers Rss Feeds
Did you know that the journal Nature (plus its myriad imprints) has rss feeds? You can get them for Nature itself, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Neuroscience Reviews -- plus a whole bunch more. Check out the Nature page for info. on RSS feeds and the...
Neuroscience
A Tale of Two Disciplines?
Did you read the Nature article in December comparing Wikipedia to the Encyclopaedia Britannica? They compare several scientific entries from Wikipedia & Britannica & conclude that "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries."
That was in December. A few weeks ago, Nature (to its credit), posted a (pdf) 20-page rebuttal by the Britannica folks which finds faults with the Nature study for several reasons. These include that Nature only looked at partial Britannica entries for some items, for not distinguishing between minor mistakes and major mistakes in counting the total number of errors in each entry, and that Nature didn't review the "free-lance" scientific reviewers' findings. Nature posted its own 2 page rebuttal in which they stand by their original research.
To me, the problems stem from two very different ways of conducting research: the scientific way and the reference-work way. The Britannica folks are mostly concerned that the Nature people ignored the value of the reference work of the Britannica (such as writing style and editing) while the Nature people would probably admit to being more concerned about the number of errors and don’t feel the need to distinguish between major & minor errors.
Also, to quote Paula Berinstein in the March issue of Searcher, "for many subjects, Wikipedia is good enough." I'd add, for everything else, there's Britannica.
- A Highlighted Blog At Nature
The Neurocritic has been mentioned as a highlighted blog at nature.com, along with Good Math, Bad Math. Check out some of the other blogs in the Nature Network and beyond. Of the major non-OA (open access) publishers, NPG has been ahead of the curve...
- Peer Review Trial And Debate At Nature
Omni Brain links to a new feature at Nature: a 3 month trial period of "open" peer review. For those who opt to submit their papers under this track, authors can choose to have their submissions posted on a preprint server for open comments, in parallel...
- Nature's Neuropod: New Edition Available
The October 2009 issue of Nature's NeuroPod podcast is available for listening and download. It can be found at NeuroPod homepage. This edition includes reports about gaming mice and the relation between sleep problems and memory function. From the...
- Mind & Brain Portal, From Wikipedia
Wikipedia may be controversial, but that's because some stuff is good & some stuff is, well, not reliable. That said, the Mind & Brain Portal (which I found through Sci Am Mind) is "an interdisciplinary point of entry to such related fields as the...
- Nature Neuro, Etc. Offers Rss Feeds
Did you know that the journal Nature (plus its myriad imprints) has rss feeds? You can get them for Nature itself, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Neuroscience Reviews -- plus a whole bunch more. Check out the Nature page for info. on RSS feeds and the...