Web 2.0 and scientific journals, some reflections

In line with the summary on the table that make Web 2.0 and scientific journals that took place during the 3rd International LIS-EPI Meeting in Valencia, it is interesting to highlight some conclusions that I personally took from what they have. Unfortunately, as a matter of time I could not get to share with the audience, although there is here the question open in case any reader would like to participate.

During the table discussion, it became clear that scientists are not particularly participatory when conducting science when brought within reach 2.0 tools. In fact, he claimed an assistant, from Nature's own confession that was obtained was greater interest in their Press section, where he had hung a series of videos, which in the remaining sections collaborative. Moreover, scientists concluded that they did not seem very interested in assessing the work of their peers in the course of the Open Peer Review and participation ratios were quite modest. Following the above, we conclude that:

1. Scientists are comfortable within the current model of communication, despite criticism about the costs they must bear public institutions in financing the work and even published in magazines.
2. Scientists want their work to appear publicly before its final acceptance (Think of the preprints). Obviously, if a job is rejected, you can try its publication in another journal with impact factor or less where we are aware that it is possible for publication by the circumstances may be.
3. The evaluation of scientific work is still based on the publication (publish or perish) in scientific journals and papers, so while the evaluators do not include other indicators for baremación of scientific activity, researchers do not migrate to other models more participatory communicative and open, although some small trials conducted with them.

On the other hand, thought that made Isidro F. Aguillo find another table I found quite interesting at the above thread. Aguillo advocated that scientists improve their personal web pages, which are not limited to small curriculum vitae with lists of their publications, lectures given and work done, but that becomes much more dynamic websites and open to participation. It is possible that the researcher was thinking indirectly in blogs, sites create small reflections, demonstrate knowledge, build bridges to other researchers, and disseminating a more concrete work.

Ultimately, it is possible that science is based on the concepts 2.0 and Torres-Salinas believes, however the recognition of a scientific researcher by his peers, has not yet reached by way of Web 2.0. The networking and recognition is done yet completely traditional by publishing scientific texts and revision, the presence in books, presentations at congresses, and so on. Yes, Scientific foundations have 2.0, as the growth of collaborative and almost disinterested, though he deserves to leave disinterested in an aside, but obviously still is not the same scales.

In any case, the presence of Science in Web 2.0, Science 2.0, serve to reinforce that sense of community open and disinterested by the growth of human beings. It would be useful in building bridges towards a society that supports and funds, through the establishment of research networks, and the location of research groups with similar interests. It may be a long way to go, although it is quite likely to slow, with the arrival of new generations, the gap in the digital asimentría will be reduced.