Talk:Pure science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re: 12:24, 8 July 2006 Basicsci99 (Talk | contribs)

edited out by Warofdreams was: An example of an on-line journal club that focuses on issues related to basic science can be found here.

No need to get into a link war, but I too reviewed this link, and do not believe it to be spam. In fact, I also use this reasource, and find it helpful when reseraching a possible study that I will conduct. I get many good ideas from journalreview.org.

The site has no advertising, is free to use and register for, and does not lead one toward one topic - but rather lets visiters choose their own area of interest to discuss. I believe that this is a quality link, a good example of how purse science is advanced, and should be included here.

I write this hear - so that the link in question http://www.JournalReview.org - can be discussed, and as a group we can decide if it should or should not be included.

Clearly, I would vote that it should be included.

Thanks for making this your first edit. Regardless of the merits of the JournalReview site, it is not devoted to basic science, that merely being one category it covers. The information it contains is of little relevance to this article. External links, in general, shouldn't be examples, but rather sources, or provide additional information of obvious relevance. For more information, see Wikipedia:External links. Warofdreams talk 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.... though I too see how the JournalReview site appears to have little relevance to this article, when looking closer at the goals of JournalReview I actually think that represents the true essance of the article. The essance of pure science is "the exact science of the development of scientific theories". Scientific theories are developed by research - and research builds on itself. Nothing is more essential to research than the understanding of the streangths, and flaws of previous publications. It is with this knowledge that pure science can advance. As far as I know, JournalReview is the only resource that allows for discussion of ANY basic science article indexed by the NLM. Although Basic Science is only one category of JournalReview - it seems as if the link that was provided went direclty to that category - which would certainly be of interets to any scientist reading this article. --MovingScience 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that discussions like these are not a vote, and flooding talk pages with users of your site or sockpuppets will not affect the decision. As I said before, JournalReview may have any number of merits, but an Alexa ranking of 2,325,654 strongly suggests that it is not currently a primary resource for scientists. Warofdreams talk 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I am not a member of this project - nor a registered member of wikipedia - though I have reviewed the link - journalreview.org - after reading this talk page. Though this is not a place for a vote - it is a place to discuss a proposal that is controversial - which in this case is to, or not to include the link. Though the site might not have the Alexa ranking one would anticipate - it does apear to be on the cutting edge of both open access, and post publication peer review - both areas that are of great interest to the scientific community. I have not used wikipedia much... and I know that warofdreams has much more experienc ethan I - however, I did look at this discussion, and I did find the site to be of use.

In any case, this is alot of talk for a rather undeveloped stub - which certainly has an even smaller Alexa ranking scale - but here we all are talking about it!

[edit] merger

I support the merger of this with fundamental science. Pure science and Hard science both have derogatory or negative connotations. --Buridan 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a contrary thought

It seems to me that to merge the concepts of pure and hard science within Wikipedia is somewhat at odds with Biglan's Dimensions of Disciplinary Variation (hard-soft versus pure-applied). Perhaps instead of (or in addition to) such a change, a link to his concepts is required for the reader? Justin Washtell, MSc Multidisciplinary Informatics, University of Leeds 129.11.145.104 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)