The scientific paper—the actual form of it—was one of the enabling inventions of modernity. Before it was developed in the 1600s, results were communicated privately in letters, ephemerally in lectures, or all at once in books. There was no public forum for incremental advances. By making room for reports of single experiments or minor technical advances, journals made the chaos of science accretive. Scientists from that point forward became like the social insects: They made their progress steadily, as a buzzing mass.
The earliest papers were in some ways more readable than papers are today. They were less specialized, more direct, shorter, and far less formal. Calculus had only just been invented. Entire data sets could fit in a table on a single page. What little “computation” contributed to the results was done by hand and could be verified in the same way.
The more sophisticated science becomes, the harder it is to communicate results. Papers today are longer than ever and full of jargon and symbols. They depend on chains of computer programs that generate data, and clean up data, and plot data, and run statistical models on data. These programs tend to be both so sloppily written and so central to the results that it’s contributed to a replication crisis, or put another way, a failure of the paper to perform its most basic task: to report what you’ve actually discovered, clearly enough that someone else can discover it for themselves.
Most programs I have used for science have worked fine.These programs tend to be both so sloppily written...
I don't have much knowledge about this topic, but I'm pretty sure that earlier scientific papers were less accessible than the author implies. Many publications are hidden behind paywalls but it's much easier to get a hold almost any kind of information on the internet. I doubt that any means of distributing papers in the past can rival this kind of accessibility. Even assuming what the author says is true, I also doubt that academics intentionally try to complicate their work. Jargon is necessary to ensure precision when communicating within the field. Scientific communication with the public, on the other hand, is an arduous and equally important task that involves retaining this level of precision while teaching in an engaging and understandable manner. This is an entirely different can of worms I won't get into here.The earliest papers were in some ways more readable than papers are today. They were less specialized, more direct, shorter, and far less formal. Calculus had only just been invented. Entire data sets could fit in a table on a single page. What little “computation” contributed to the results was done by hand and could be verified in the same way.
The more sophisticated science becomes, the harder it is to communicate results. Papers today are longer than ever and full of jargon and symbols.
I know some people who work at the ZFIN (Zebrafish Information Network) DB.Aufbauwerk 2045 said:could be machine translated into a format that could be parsed by the computer.
I think this would be a bad idea. It is good to publish things that ether confirm or deny previous publications. Both are useful in the progress of science.Aufbauwerk 2045 said:Papers which are basically duplicates of those already accepted would of course be rejected.
Aufbauwerk 2045 said:I used to have a pet solution to this problem. My AI fantasy used to be to have all mathematical and scientific knowledge stored in a computer which can serve as encyclopedia, proof checker, tutor, experiment proposer, theorem originator, conversationalist, data analyzer, etc. When I say "stored" I mean the knowledge representation would be such that it would be suitable for semantic processing by a machine.
One aspect would be that all scientific papers would be written in such a way that they could be machine translated into a format that could be parsed by the computer. It would then validate the paper according to various criteria and either accept or reject. Papers which are basically duplicates of those already accepted would of course be rejected.
If you wanted to review the latest literature on a given topic, you would log into the system and engage in a conversation with the computer using natural language. It would serve as a super-intelligent scientist who would know all existing scientific knowledge and be able to out-think the greatest geniuses in history.
But I have nightmares when I think of that kind of system being controlled by the type of people we have in prominence now in the tech world, or even by benevolent people. I like the way the current system is somewhat redundant and perhaps chaotic and full of mistakes. Some redundancy, error, and even chaos is far better than central control by a small group of humans.
Until the AIs unionized.gibberingmouther said:this future would not have the problem of the AIs having "central control by a small group...".
"The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete" is an essay written by Michael Nielsen that argues for a new form of scientific communication that goes beyond the traditional scientific paper.
The author believes that the traditional scientific paper is becoming increasingly inadequate in the digital age, where data and information can be shared and accessed easily. He argues that the paper format limits the dissemination and collaboration of scientific research.
The proposed alternative is a more dynamic and interactive form of communication, using tools such as blogs, wikis, and online platforms for sharing data and code. This allows for easier collaboration and more transparent and reproducible research.
The potential benefits include increased collaboration and transparency, faster dissemination of research, and the ability to track the impact and usage of research in real time. It also allows for more diverse forms of communication, such as videos and interactive visualizations.
Some potential challenges include resistance from traditional scientific institutions and researchers, as well as concerns about quality control and ensuring proper attribution and credit for contributions. There may also be technical barriers for some researchers in adopting new tools and platforms.