A new kind of peer-review was featured in a recent post in Nature blog.
Commenting on a blog post about something completely different, a guy nicknamed Liquidcarbon drew attention to an article in Journal of the American Chemical Society, that he found to be completely odd. After less than 24 hours after his "WTF is going on there?", the experiments were reproduced showing results, different from those of the original paper.
Being quite far from pure chemistry, I can not judge whether the conclusions of the article and those of bloggers are correct. But, anyway, here is a good example of how science will probably look like in the future - now we call this Science 2.0.
1 comment:
P.S. This story was also presented in the last Nature podcast (from July, 30), in the very last part of it. You can listen to the podcast here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/
Post a Comment