Debating controversies can enhance creativity
Debating controversies can enhance creativity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/35001232
复制
发表时间：
2000-02
期刊：
影响因子：
64.8
通讯作者：
Shi V. Liu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shi V. Liu
先生，我非常同意你的观点“提高自信创造力的决心”（自然403，1; 2000）的作者，“总会有一些有影响力的科学家......拒绝超越他们长期以来的科学假设”。我也同意“今天太多的创造性科学家缺乏长期的安全感”，以及“好的但非传统的想法可能会半途而废”。同行评审对于确保已发表的工作和拟议研究的质量非常重要。这种质量检查可以防止虚假信息的传播和资金的浪费。但同行评议也会限制创造力。可以做些什么来改进这个系统？随着电子出版物的出现，不必依赖固定的格式，现在可以将审查/引用部分纳入出版物。补充信息和超链接可以添加到电子出版的论文中，将它们与相关信息连接起来，比如评论或后续研究文章。通过这种方式，出版作品的价值通过链接文献的阅读自动显现。最终，出版前审查甚至可能被取消，取而代之的是持续的出版后审查，为表达创造性想法创造一个自由的氛围。我已经开始了这样一个实验，并创建了一个电子期刊，《逻辑生物学》（http：//logibio. com），致力于辩论有争议的问题，并促进逻辑作为一种工具，以审查生物学中长期持有的传统观点：例如，细菌生命的本质。或许有人会对这种出版方式不屑一顾，但为了培养创意，难道不值得一试吗？毕竟，科学出版物的主要目标不是验证，而是交流。
Sir—I could not agree more with the author of your Opinion “Resolution to enhance confident creativity”(Nature 403, 1; 2000) that “there will always be established and influential scientists who... are resistant to looking beyond their long-held scientific assumptions”. I also agree that “too many of today’s creative scientists lack long-term security” and that “good but unconventional ideas are probably falling by the wayside”. Peer review is important for ensuring the quality of published work and proposed studies. This quality check can prevent false information being disseminated and funds being wasted. But peer review can also restrict creativity. What can be done to improve the system? With the emergence of electronic publications, which do not have to rely on a fixed format, the reviewing/citation components can now be integrated into publications. Supplemental information and hyperlinks can be added to electronically published papers to connect them with related information—a review or a follow-up research article, say. In this way, the value of the published work is automatically revealed through the reading of linked literature. Ultimately, prepublication review might even be eliminated and replaced with continuous post-publication review, creating a free atmosphere for expressing creative ideas. I have started such an experiment and created an electronic journal, Logical Biology (http://logibio. com), dedicated to debating controversial issues and promoting logic as a tool for scrutinizing long-held conventional views in biology: for example, the nature of bacterial life. Some people may dismiss this type of publication, but, in the interest of fostering creativity, isn’t it worth a try? The primary goal of scientific publication is, after all, not validation but communication.