New Scientist.  Scientists make eggregious citation errors in published papers that mushroom in their effect.  This wouldn't have happened if these papers were published to the Web (open to interconnection) and had a peer review process like Weblogs do.  Make a lousy link and a couple of people will call you on it in a less than a few hours after posting it.  [John Robb's Radio Weblog]

This is an example of how the publishers of scientific journals are hurting science by stubbornly continuing to resist the Web.  As I've said before in this forum, HTML/HTTP were originally designed for publishing scientific papers.  But it has never been used for that purpose.  Now we know that this is to the detriment of the scientific process and the scientific community.

5:57:36 AM