One of the ways izglednite development of science today is open source and share research results.

One of the ways izglednite development of science today is open source and share research results. inter zoo If that data would be available to all science inter zoo would get a lot of transparency, reproducibility and efficiency in research. Societies would have received much more.
Britannica inter zoo over 200 years has been the best encyclopedia in the world. Then appeared the Web site named him Wikipedia. inter zoo At this place, anyone open an account without limitation, can write articles about what he considers knows, using the law to rewrite, delete, finalize and foreign records. No one knows exactly how or why, but this ended in anarchy online pan-planetary collaboration unprecedented in history.
In just a few years, Wikipedia has reached and overtook all other encyclopedias by the number of texts, despite the manner in which they arise, the quality and accuracy is not lagging behind inter zoo even one of them. Instead in 2000 the eminent authors encyclopedia, as in the case Britannica, Wikipedia is written from 100,000 anonymous volunteers. Such cooperation would certainly not be possible without the Internet developed. The technological leap from paper to the Internet side, it seems that it was necessary to awaken the collective mind and start to create. inter zoo
It is arguable that there are tools for online collaboration, from simple file sharing, the use of social networks inter zoo samoistrazhuvanje, but it is nowhere near what it needs to be online collaboration.
It can be said that the potential of the Internet is used if two people in the same laboratory using the same file set to a Web folder. inter zoo Wikipedia is an example of how to share ideas and collaborate, even those whose existence we never knew. Write good relevant text and Wikipedia and then it by itself will evolve. inter zoo Are we to exclude that also can be developed and scientific texts?
Scientific inter zoo papers undergoing peer review, ie tighter control methodology, interpretation of results and conclusions based on the results we derive. There is no doubt that its very existence the Internet this can greatly speed up. Review the work lasts. But maybe you should not be speeding giving a review, but to change the way it does. For starters, where writes that reviewers must be lazy masked vigilantes? Would not it help if it is a public review and recognized as a scientific contribution?
Then reviewers-commentators appeared alone would do the job, we invested more effort and would be more constructive because inter zoo whatever you write will be for everyone inter zoo to see. This approach to science would certainly be a serious step forward. For more serious step to open up the data they work with researchers. It is not easy.
Reviewers control methodology and interpretation of results, but no one controls the source data upon which everything else is built. There always used the free editor for reliability assessment. If the author is known, if it comes from a respectable institution, or if, as in the joke with the rabbit, the bear is mentor, is OK. Otherwise, the editors become overly attentive to any unexpected result. Neither in the one nor in the other case there is no objective evaluation of the data. Subjective judgment, such as customs, often a binary outcome: either passes or not. Someone in a suitcase with a double bottom can not smuggle anything, while others are bad and no suitcase.
When the original data would be available to all who are interested in them, the whole process would be much more transparent. If Hendrik Shen their lab results sometimes shared with the rest of the world, surely someone would have noticed that something is wrong, a lot of time before being discovered for the fraud that Science and Nature were forced to withdraw 15 Shenovi papers founded on falifikuvani results measurement, and what is worse, because that hundreds of people were forced its perennial research to throw in the trash.
Historically scientific data almost never been publicly available. For this there are several reasons. Some relate to technology, the paper is an effective medium for sharing larger database, but the Internet opens new opportunities for sharing, collaboration and analysis, as well as some new types of scientific research. Many researchers do not want to share their data with the scientific community, because of fear that someone else will use and will steal the glory for research. Or you might discover an error in measurement or methodology.
This is particularly evident in the rich sets of data that can be used for writing several papers. Finally, there is the problem of lack of adequate recognition or reward for such a generous gesture as publishing