By
Debi62.
March 11, 2010 at 11:58AM (PST)
What I like about this site the most is a key aspect presented on the main page:
"Herein also lies the greatest difference between Scholarpedia and traditional print media: although the initial authorship and review are similar to a print journal so that Scholarpedia articles could be cited, articles are not frozen and outdated, but dynamic, subject to an ongoing process of improvement moderated by their curators. This allows Scholarpedia to be up-to-date, yet maintain the highest quality of content."
Excellent!!!! Science is an ever-changing world!!! So our encyclopedias need to be dynamic as well!!! They need to be written by those who are knowledgable though in order to counteract false data being distributed to those who probably are not knowledgable enough on the subject to recognize the errors. It also shouldn't be so that our journals and encyclopedias contain outdated information by the time they come into print!!!! This makes Scholorpedia a great choice because it speeds up the process of quickly getting current, precise and correct information into the hands of those who need it, allowing for peer-reviewed counter-communication to dispel possible incomplete or erroneous findings. It also becomes available to the general public since it's free; so the public is able to directly research and learn from the experience of those in the field without cost (other than internet connection, which is still free in libraries).
Get Site Info