Publishing greasemonkey scripts (update)

A while ago I asked if greasemonkey scripts should be published in peer reviewed journals or if blogs could be a more suitable way of distributing these tools. The blog post was triggered by the publication of iHOPerator, mentioned also by Deepak.

I would like to thank one of the authors, Benjamin Good, and a BMC editor, Matt Hodgkinson, for taking the time to post their opinion in the comments. In summary they both argue that this publication helps raise awareness to greasemonkey and related technologies.

For me this exchange in the comments exemplifies the usefulness of the web for discussing science. The comments on this paper are aggregated in this Postgenomic entry and anyone could, in principle, participate no matter where they are.

This also reminded me of a discussion I had with someone here at EMBL recently. If web based discussions like this take off then authors might have a higher work load in trying to keep up with what is being said about their works. If a misinterpretation occurs it has a higher potential for spreading online. On the other hand, these sorts of web discussion help to level the playing field for manuscripts. In the near future it might not matter so much were the paper is published but if attracted the attention of the people in the field.