There’s a bill being drafted by the House Science Committee and rumors are it’s going to be anathema to the science advocacy community, ScienceInsider has the story here. At stake may be peer review–both at NSF and other science agencies.
From this post on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s site. As a journal editor, I’m worried about the details of how you would get peer review into the process. The notion of using an upward filtration process doesn’t satisfy. You need expert peers to make the initial decision. What’s being proposed here is something more akin to a popularity contest.
On the other hand, I’m convinced that some of the intellectual content posted on some blogs is worthy of publication in peer reviewed journals. We just haven’t figured out how to get there. In the meantime, there’s always Arts and Letters Daily.
Clive Cookson and Andrew Jack of the Financial Times have an excellent comprehensive look at the current issues with scientific peer review including a discussion of Science 2.0 (although they don’t define it as such).
Librarians are learning about blogs in the context of scholarship. Interesting if true. As a journal editor, I have a difficult time accepting that peer review and editing aren’t part of the crucial value-added part of publishing when scholarship is concerned.