>Is there a better way of retaining the "oral history" of science,
> that 90% of observations which are never published, than in the
> second-hand recollections of dwindling numbers of former grad
> students and post-docs?
> Most likely, >85% of this unpublished 90% is crap, but with search
> engines, is there now enough storage and filtering capability to locate
> gems and justify the effort? And how? Online notebooks? An E-journal of
> and Partial Results? Is there some form of editorial control and publication
> quality assurance that would work in a high-data, low information environment?
Not a bad idea, but I doubt the funding could be found for it. Furthermore,
who would do the peer review re quality of empirical methodology, etc.?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 20 2001 - 09:12:00 EDT