Interesting post. I do encourage academics to get involved in editing Wikipedia, if they're so inclined, but besides being prepared to deal with numerous conflicts they might not expect to have, they should be aware that Wikipedia is very explicitly scoped to be *not* for publishing original research. (This is a longstanding rule that's been subject to a lot of wrangling; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research for a summary of the consensus.) Rather than try to fight Wikipedians on that, I'd encourage academics instead to find other suitable venues for publishing that research. (There's a wide variety of venues beyond the usual suspects, and more are emerging all the time.) If that research is published in a peer-reviewed venue that Wikipedians find trustworthy, it can be then be summarized and cited in appropriate relevant Wikipedia articles.
I agree: Wikipedia in its current form is not suitable. And for good reason, it is not its purpose.
It would have been nice to use Wiki since, well, it's already there and well known. I am hoping the concept of Wikipedia can be used to create a publication platform for academic research.
I am not a scientist, but I have always felt that the research journals which have paywalls to prevent the public from reading the studies is very unscientific. Journalists get the research results, although I have no idea if this comes from PR hype about studies or whether the journalists actually get to read the studies and report on them. If not Wikipedia, why not the BMJ. Or even scientists publshing research studies on Substack—but preventing Substack from paywalling the posts.
The first problem comes from journal requiring extra fees to allow open access to papers. This can be upwards of $10 000 which most labs don't have to spend on a single paper. There are journals that provide open access with no additional cost and there are pre-print servers that are free and open access as well. These servers however are not peer reviewed and a lot of it is... questionable.
Journalist can have access to the data and read most of the results (even though this is not always true) but the papers that get covered by journalists are often come from well established labs that have the weight of reputation behind them. It begs the question of how much excellent research is never covered because it flies under the radar?
Publishing on substack could be an option. In my mind, they key idea of this essay is not only the publishing part but also the way science is conducted. The means of scientific dissemination drives the way we do science in the first place. My hope is that a new way of publishing would lead to better science.
I did understand that you are suggesting the research model needs to be updated, and really appreciated your history of scientific research. I didn't realize journals charged extra for open access. Another reason to abandon the old model. :) And I realize the public may not be able to assess the quality of research. This is why I value Vinay Prasad's substack articles. He does not paywall his free subscribers like some of those who analyze research data on Substack.
The Substack if Sensible Medicine. There are several contributors. Prasad is one of those who review research studies. John Mandrola is another. Adam Cifu is another, but Cifu paywalls his posts. Has always puzzled me why there is this difference.
Interesting post. I do encourage academics to get involved in editing Wikipedia, if they're so inclined, but besides being prepared to deal with numerous conflicts they might not expect to have, they should be aware that Wikipedia is very explicitly scoped to be *not* for publishing original research. (This is a longstanding rule that's been subject to a lot of wrangling; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research for a summary of the consensus.) Rather than try to fight Wikipedians on that, I'd encourage academics instead to find other suitable venues for publishing that research. (There's a wide variety of venues beyond the usual suspects, and more are emerging all the time.) If that research is published in a peer-reviewed venue that Wikipedians find trustworthy, it can be then be summarized and cited in appropriate relevant Wikipedia articles.
I agree: Wikipedia in its current form is not suitable. And for good reason, it is not its purpose.
It would have been nice to use Wiki since, well, it's already there and well known. I am hoping the concept of Wikipedia can be used to create a publication platform for academic research.
I am not a scientist, but I have always felt that the research journals which have paywalls to prevent the public from reading the studies is very unscientific. Journalists get the research results, although I have no idea if this comes from PR hype about studies or whether the journalists actually get to read the studies and report on them. If not Wikipedia, why not the BMJ. Or even scientists publshing research studies on Substack—but preventing Substack from paywalling the posts.
The first problem comes from journal requiring extra fees to allow open access to papers. This can be upwards of $10 000 which most labs don't have to spend on a single paper. There are journals that provide open access with no additional cost and there are pre-print servers that are free and open access as well. These servers however are not peer reviewed and a lot of it is... questionable.
Journalist can have access to the data and read most of the results (even though this is not always true) but the papers that get covered by journalists are often come from well established labs that have the weight of reputation behind them. It begs the question of how much excellent research is never covered because it flies under the radar?
Publishing on substack could be an option. In my mind, they key idea of this essay is not only the publishing part but also the way science is conducted. The means of scientific dissemination drives the way we do science in the first place. My hope is that a new way of publishing would lead to better science.
I did understand that you are suggesting the research model needs to be updated, and really appreciated your history of scientific research. I didn't realize journals charged extra for open access. Another reason to abandon the old model. :) And I realize the public may not be able to assess the quality of research. This is why I value Vinay Prasad's substack articles. He does not paywall his free subscribers like some of those who analyze research data on Substack.
I'll make sure to check out that substack! Thanks for the recommendation.
The Substack if Sensible Medicine. There are several contributors. Prasad is one of those who review research studies. John Mandrola is another. Adam Cifu is another, but Cifu paywalls his posts. Has always puzzled me why there is this difference.