The nano.org project is currently in early beta testing. However, the features described below are already in effect. One exception to the description below is that, during beta, all users automatically have the scholar rank. Read more about the beta test here.

Background
Here's a sketch of how scientists are increasingly using the internet as a the primary medium for talking about research publications. Typically such discussions exist in one of two forms:

• Blogs. Many scientists are using their blogs (diary-like resources) to express opinions about the latest research in their fields. Blogs may link to one another, and may permit visitors to leave remarks, so that they can host discussions. Drawback: there is no mechanism (aside from search engines) to determine which Blogs might be discussing a given article.

• Forums and Bulletin Boards. These are structures where a user can start a discussion thread on a given topic, and other users may post comments of any length. An active thread might receive a new post every few minutes, while a less active one might be contributed to on the timescale of days. Forums are a natural way to have discussions. Drawbacks: There is no guarantee that material posted in this way will endure - in particular, any non-textual content, such as an image, is typically hosted offsite, so that after a period these resources disappear. Moreover, incorporation of content such as images and equations requires specific technical skills. Finally, internet forums do not generally screen their users for, eg, qualifications, nor require them to use real names. Anyone who registers may post and there is no simple way to judge the authority of the source.

The role of nano.org
Within nano.org we have implemented our own variety of discussion structure that is designed to encompass the merits of these existing mechanisms but with important enhancements. We emphasise easy composition of scientific posts including equations and figures, and ensure scientific integrity though permanent records, verified real names, and 'scholar' rank (read more about ranks here). The most common type of discussion is one associated with a given research article, here's an outline of how that works:

Example: Starting a Discussion - suppose that you are interested in some paper that has just appeared in journal X, and you'd like to have an open discussion about it. As a prerequisite of the following, you must register at nano.org and obtain the "scholar" rank. You would visit the Articles section of nano.org, check that there isn't a discussion about this article already in progress, then pick "New Article Thread". Then give a few pieces of information about the article - title, authors etc. Since this is an external research source, rather than an article hosted on nano.org, you also need to paste in a URL (i.e. a web address http://...) that other readers can follow to find the article. Then click [submit] and your new discussion thread will have been created. Now you can make the first 'post' to that thread, giving your opinion and raising any points you'd like to openly discuss. If you'd like to include equations or graphics as part of your post, you'll find it easy to do so. Other scholars can now visit our discussion thread and make their own contributions. Individuals who are likely to be interested, such as the original authors and any nano.org user who has requested alerts tied to relevant keywords, will automatically be notified of the creation of your discussion thread.

A detailed Help page walking you through this process is available here.

In the above example, the discussion concerns a research article that is hosted at a journal, and is therefore a external article. As described here, it is also possible for authors to upload a PDF file of their manuscript directly to nano.org, and this process will also create a discussion thread.

Another feature we offer in order to support free and honest scientific debate is optional anonymity. While we encourage contributors to post openly under their name whenever possible, we recognise that sometimes it is impossible to make critical remarks without compromising professional relationships. Read more about anonymity here.

Read more about registering and establishing oneself as a "scholar" here. We provide tutorials showing how to contribute to discussions, including the insertion of figures and equations, here.