facilitate the global conversation on every scholarly work
How will facilitating the global conversation "strengthen the Internet for free expression and innovation"?
12 Matching Annotations
- Apr 2014
-
www.newschallenge.org www.newschallenge.org
-
-
which leads into our key step in creating a more collaborative and open scientific community.
By "key step" here do you mean "goal"? This might be more clearly written as something like "which enables our goal of creating a more collaborative and open scientific community"?
-
Users can choose to keep their highlights and annotations private, or to share them with the world, which leads into our key step in creating a more collaborative and open scientific community.
Expand on this more to explain how sharing highlights and annotations is key to more collaboration and openness. What do you imagine PeerLibrary will make possible for the scientific community that they cannot do now?
-
Reproducibility
Reproducibility is mentioned in the title of this section, but it is not mentioned elsewhere in the document and I don't see it addressed in what's written in this section.
-
it empowers the entire scientific community by enabling new advancements and tools for scholarly communication.
What kind of advancements?
-
science will produce improved results and better serve the community.
How will the results be improved and in what way will the community be better served?
I expect you explain how later in the document and provide examples, but to strengthen the intro and capture your readers give the a teaser of what's to come if they continue reading.
-
We hope that if we promote collaboration within the scientific process
This should maybe read "We hope that if we promote this kind of collaboration within the scientific process" to emphasize the specific kind of interactions you mention earlier in the paragraph, whereas the way it is written sounds like collaboration in general.
-
- Jan 2014
-
blog.peerlibrary.org blog.peerlibrary.org
-
In the Middle Ages, just the opposite was true. Reading was generally done aloud, often to an audience. It was an active process, so active that Susan Noakes, in her analysis of medieval reading, points out “that it had been recommended by physicians, since classical times, as a mild form of exercise, like walking.”
Reading in the Middle Ages considered a mild form of exercise.
-
that’s the strange thing about writing, which makes it truly analogous to painting. The painter’s products stand before us as if they were alive, but if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same with written words; they seem to talk to you as if they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever.
Writing analogous to painting
-
Socrates was concerned with reflective thought: the ability to think deeply about things, to question and examine every statement. He thought that reading was experiential, that it would not lead to reflection.
-
Questioning and examination are the tools of reflection: Hear an idea, ponder it, question it, modify it, explore its limitations. When the idea is presented by a person, the audience can interrupt, ask questions, probe to get at the underlying assumptions. But the author doesn’t come along with a book, so how could the book be questioned if it couldn’t answer back? This is what bothered Socrates.
This is what bothered socrates.
-
Socrates, Plato tells us, argued that books would destroy thought.
Books as destroyers of thought
-