Power strips (surge protectors) are not the most romantic of subjects. But apparently, even such mundane things have an interesting story to tell.

Look at these pictures:

My last blog dealt with the impact of blogs and other (non peer-reviewed) Internet publications on the scientific research process. Let's continue on that topic with a focus on how such publications affect patent rights.

The US patent law holds that an invention cannot be patented if (a) the invention happened after a similar idea (or an idea from which the invention is "obvious" to an expert practitioner in the field) had been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world or (b) the patent filing date is more than a year from such publication even if the invention happened earlier (see www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html).

This is how researchers used to operate. You do some research and have some "results"—a well-articulated idea or point of view, an invention, a proof, empirical results to support or refute a hypothesis—and then you write a paper. Make sure that your bibliography does not omit even remotely relevant work by the heavyweights in your field. If you are submitting to a journal, expect to wait for at least three months before you get your first round of reviews. Modify the paper to satisfy the reviewers. Sometimes, a second round can follow. Even after the paper is accepted, expect three to six months lag before it's actually published.

A close scientist friend of mine (let's call him John) recently lamented to me that blogs and other types of non peer-reviewed Internet publications are extremely detrimental to scientific research. His argument was that scientists and even non-scientists can now publish pseudo-scientific ideas and experimental results without a peer-review process. This means that poor (or worse, wrong) ideas and untested results can gain scientific respectability as they get quoted and linked across the Internet.

Is John right?