Um... yeah. I know how B.Sc students are trained in universities.
You don't have much education, do you idiotgirl?
Okay Luna, typically these sites already exist. They are called science journals.
Some of the modern ones require a membership fee, and you waive publishing rights the second you publish. In fact while digging around it seemed as if one of these sites expected you to get permission from them, with a potential fee to republish your own work for use with anything other than the website.
Other science peer review sites are a little more elitist and require that you belong to a university or legitimate research organization to join.
Some are further elitist and require that you be a published author before you can join.
So, these sort of sites do exist... and you have a potential market by opening the flood gates to all others who have been systematically rejected from entering other venues. As it stands now, I have seen no evidence that the value or relevance of a article being ranked based on the value of a peer review or approval based on the value of the peer themselves. IN fact I can find evidence that google scholar is anything more than textual based content relevancy ranking. All the other membership fee websites, I don't know. There is a community on reddit called scholar, that is dedicated to sharing these journals to people who could otherwise not gain access to them due to costs or restricted memberships.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Scholar
So... I have not found a defacto "science journal social network" yet, however, I have heard mention of these sites trying to enter the market and university students despise being marketed towards for these types of social networks. They already live in an eco-system that is ultimately anti-corporate. Essentially you are quite a few years behind those who are already attempting to capitalize on your idea. I have no idea if you are trying to capitalize or simply provide something meaningful to society, however, do remember that eventually everything becomes a gear in the larger capitalist machine.
Also, take note that some people have gotten into significant trouble with the law, hacking scientific databases and releasing that information to the public. It is a topic of hot debate with some of the more hard core anti-secrecy hacker types.
I hate to admit it, but I'm with Etzel on this. Any 'scientist' who can't get published through legitimate channels isn't really a scientist.
Yeah, and the wiki is a stupid idea...