Science 3.0: Corrections to the Science 2.0 paradigm

TL;DR

This paper proposes modifications to the Science 2.0 paradigm, addressing issues like open-access fee biases and non-anonymous online discussions, to develop a more equitable and effective Science 3.0 framework.

Contribution

It introduces specific corrections to Science 2.0, including fee-free open access and anonymized post-publication comments, aiming to improve scientific communication and fairness.

Findings

Open-access fees increase biases and inequalities.

Non-anonymous comments hinder honest scientific discussion.

Proposed anonymization systems can improve post-publication peer review.

Abstract

The concept of Science 2.0 was introduced almost a decade ago to describe the new generation of online-based tools for researchers allowing easier data sharing, collaboration and publishing. Although technically sound, the concept still does not work as expected. Here we provide a systematic line of arguments to modify the concept of Science 2.0, making it more consistent with the spirit and traditions of science and Internet. Our first correction to the Science 2.0 paradigm concerns the open-access publication models charging fees to the authors. As discussed elsewhere, we show that the monopoly of such publishing models increases biases and inequalities in the representation of scientific ideas based on the author's income. Our second correction concerns post-publication comments online, which are all essentially non-anonymous in the current Science 2.0 paradigm. We conclude that scientific post-publication discussions require special anonymization systems. We further analyze the reasons of the failure of the current post-publication peer-review models and suggest what needs to be changed in Science 3.0 to convert Internet into a large journal club.