tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post4265852976267089319..comments2024-03-12T03:23:42.976-04:00Comments on NeuroDojo: The science of askingZen Faulkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811309183398223358noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-14412670139769827732014-12-27T00:16:12.304-05:002014-12-27T00:16:12.304-05:00I am biased, as I am a co-author with Zen on this ...I am biased, as I am a co-author with Zen on this paper, but this is a great analysis of the intellectual journey that our paper has taken. <br /><br />Why were the comments that we got in the peer review process and on the journal website more comprehensive than the comments we had received earlier through the open notebook process? After all, as Zen mentioned, we spent years collecting and analyzing our data pretty much all out in the open. Why didn't we get a ton of really incisive feedback over the years? (I should say that we certainly got some useful feedback along the way.)<br /><br />I think that there is a big reason why and I would guess that this reason is applicable fairly broadly, when it comes to open notebook science. For close to 100% of scientists, science crowdfunding is still not on the radar screen. Consequently, a manuscript or analysis about science crowdfunding isn't something that is going to get a lot of focussed attention, unless you "force" someone (called a reviewer) to pay attention. <br /><br />I think the situation would have been very different if we had been working on a topic that is a current hot spot of activity in a scientific field. Then I am guessing we would have had a whole community of scientists picking apart our analysis from day one, with the community being the set of scientists with a professional interest in the given field. <br /><br />So, I guess that open notebook science would generate a lot of useful back and forth if you are in a very populated part of current scientific interest, not so much if you are working on weird things, like Zen and I like to do. JaiAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17016950665344446191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-32142057270761186392014-12-26T17:54:47.864-05:002014-12-26T17:54:47.864-05:00This totally meshes with my experience. We have t...This totally meshes with my experience. We have two preprints on biorxiv, and although someone appears to be downloading the PDF's we havent received comments or feedback on either. Both received thorough reviews at traditional journals. I guess there isn't a lot of incentive for someone to do a "real" review on a preprint. It would be interesting to compare the number of comments on the average biorxiv article to say, the average PLOS article (i am guessing very close to zero for both, while i would suspect the peer reviews would be much more substantial.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12291507118158076247noreply@blogger.com