Does science 2.0 makes for better science?
This is one of the key questions we need to address.
Does openness at early stage actually improve the quality of the outputs? Should therefore researchers spend more time blogging and less doing research? Does it pay off in terms of quality of outputs to open up?
Maybe there are some specific contextual conditions under which it pays off. Which are these conditions? Basic research? Natural sciences? For young researchers?
Is there evidence showing this? Are there robust studies demonstrating that more open and collaborative scientists are more productive/insightful?