The concept of Science 2.0 was introduced almost a decade ago to describe the
new generation of online-based tools for researchers allowing easier data
sharing, collaboration and publishing. Although technically sound, the concept
still does not work as expected. Here we provide a systematic line of arguments
to modify the concept of Science 2.0, making it more consistent with the spirit
and traditions of science and Internet. Our first correction to the Science 2.0
paradigm concerns the open-access publication models charging fees to the
authors. As discussed elsewhere, we show that the monopoly of such publishing
models increases biases and inequalities in the representation of scientific
ideas based on the author's income. Our second correction concerns
post-publication comments online, which are all essentially non-anonymous in
the current Science 2.0 paradigm. We conclude that scientific post-publication
discussions require special anonymization systems. We further analyze the
reasons of the failure of the current post-publication peer-review models and
suggest what needs to be changed in Science 3.0 to convert Internet into a
large journal club.Comment: 7 figure
