The New York Times points out that the way that researchers publish and share their work was made for a different century. In a fascinating article they note:

• The existing process is slow and expensive. Peer review can take a long time and subscriptions costs are too high for the average consumer. It also puts a lot of power in the hands of a very small number of people.
• “Open Science” instead leverages the qualities of the internet to create open access archives and journals. Some examples include: arXiv, PLoS, and GalaxyZoo.
• Proponents of the new model note that the old system encourages scientists to compete with each other, while their system allows them to collaboratively work with each other and to compete with Lindsay Lohan – for competition on people’s screens.
• The journals respond that they would love to be free and open. But they charge money for a reason: They hire editors, publishers, and expend significant resources fact checking, reviewing and fighting against plagiarism.

To read more about some of the most fascinating initiatives in the field of open science click here.

Source: The New York Times

Via: Freakonomics