newspeak

A personal, reflective argument for open practices by Chris Lee, who is both an Ars writer and a professional physicist. The claim here for open is not just for practices that work against closed, proprietary systems but also against peer review, about which, at this point, there are serious questions.

It all began with open access: the idea that published scientific results should be open to anyone. I’ve always been supportive of open access, but I’m now much more in favor of the practice. I think that arXiv.org should be our model: any scientist can upload drafts of papers before they go through peer review, allowing anyone to read them and others in the field to review them informally. This is in contrast to a place like PLoS, which puts a paper through formal peer review before posting it online for anyone to see.

 

Open access movement could change relationship between science and industry.

Source: Science with open hardware: A new way to restrict participation | Ars Technica

An interesting project and site. The link to the conference on Academia.edu, which has recently garnered all the wrong sort of publicity in staid journals like The Chronicle of Higher Education. (Inside Higher Ed, not protected by a paywall—yay—has a good summary of the monetisation scandal.)

Source: Centre for Disruptive Media

The semiconductor industry will soon abandon its pursuit of Moore’s law. Now things could get a lot more interesting.

Source: The chips are down for Moore’s law : Nature News & Comment