It looks like you're having connection troubles. Reconnect now.
03/12/2010 17:20:01
View latest content
Link to this version
Link to read-only page
Edit this pad
HTML
Plain text
Microsoft Word
PDF
Link to this version
Link to read-only page
Edit this pad
Download as
HTMLPlain textMicrosoft WordPDF
Authors
Science-2-0-at-Eurodoc-2010
Version 3999
Saved March 12, 2010
Saved March 12, 2010
This pad serves as a notepad for the Science 2.0 session at the Eurodoc 2010 conference:
The text in this document is synchronized as you type, so that everyone viewing this page sees the same text. You do not have to log in to type here, though providing your name in the top right box would be nice.
Please do not edit above the line of "=" but feel free to take notes below it. To pose questions, please use the chat on the right or a Twitter message tagged with #eurodoc2010 . Comments on the individual items in the pad should be placed directly below them, preceded by "Comment:".
========================
Warm-up:
- Some questions: How many of you (answers in %)
- have not done a Google search within the past 24h before leaving for this conference? 100%
- have been to a library within the past month? 50%
- read blogs on a regular basis? 40
- read research-related blogs on a regular basis? 40
- use Twitter, Friendfeed or identi.ca? 30
- do not use any social network online? 0
- have been to http://www.eurodoc.net/ within the past month? 100
- know what the (Journal) Impact Factor is? 50
- know how it is calculated? 0
- have heard of Open Science? (see FAQ section) 60
- know someone who does it? 30
- do it themselves? 0
- would be willing to help write the protocol of this session, directly in this document? 30
FAQ on Open Science:
- 1st Open Science Round-up: http://shirleywho.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/corpus-callosum-1st-edition-of-open-science-round-up/
- Breakthroughs of the year in Open Science 2009 - http://ways.org/en/blogs/2009/dec/16/breakthroughs_of_the_year_2009_in_open_science_the_polymath_project_and_articlelevel_metrics
- http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2010/03/why_it_is_important_for_media.php states "As a rule, the very best coverage of every paper in the past month was done by a blogger or two or three. "
------------
Clickstream
For those who prefer slides: http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0ASQvcnWHnwgmZGR3aHFkNmtfMjY0c210Y202aHM&hl=en . A related presentation is at http://www.slideshare.net/Daniel.Mietchen/timing-young-researchers-decisions . Other presentations are embedded in several of the posts we will come across.
Start with http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/07/conference_blogging_icons_for.php , structure as in research cycle ( http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0ASQvcnWHnwgmZGR3aHFkNmtfMjEyZHo5YjNyZzI&hl=en# ) and then mention some of the currently most pressing challenges to (and opportunities for) open science, as summarized at http://ways.org/en/node/17356 .
READ/IDEA
Positive: Feedback at the beginning of the process, not at the end. Researchers get information which might be fruitful for the research long before reviewers have the chance to comment the finished paper.
Overview of recent papers
Overview of relevant papers
Show example of "Questions for further research"
"...if you want to have great creativity and innovation, you must give complete freedom, but if you want to reap the bene fits, you must provide a framework."
Fernando Nottebohm (via http://shirleywho.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/corpus-callosum-1st-edition-of-open-science-round-up/ )
Commenting on papers - the classical approach
Commenting on papers - blog about them
Commenting on papers - in the lab notebook
Commenting on papers - annotations in Mendeley
http://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/collections/1374711/EarlyWarningSigns/ - download sample plos paper, annotate it
Socially filtered papers
Is FriendFeed currently the best social network for researchers? Feeds make it easier to find and follow research topics.
DEVELOP/FUND
Classical:
Open: Request for collaborators
Open: Collaboratively written grant proposal
Open: Funding decisions made in public:
There currently is no public evidence that the dominant system of reviewing grant proposals and manuscripts (i.e. via non-public peer review) is efficient (see also similar discussion in PUBLISH section below).
"We suggest that developing countries could leapfrog ahead by adopting from the start science grant systems that encourage innovation."
How to spend a budget of X on science?
PLAN/RECORD
Protocols
Theory:
Engaging with the public is possible at any stage:
Research/ teaching games:
Citizen science
Conference reporting: http://opensciencefoundation.com/scs/author/brianglanz/ / http://opensciencefoundation.com/scs/2010/02/20/science-creative-commons/ / http://science-2-0.piratenpad.de/Science-Commons-Symposium-Cameron-Neylon
Seminars at Second Life
RECORD/PROCESS
Protocols and measurements
Lab notebooks
Visualizations
Databases:
Robot scientists:
Problems: How to mashup CC-BY & CC-NC-SA data?
Archiving
PROCESS/PUBLISH
Conferences:
Abstract drafting:
Drafting of full conference paper:
Online poster session
Journals:
The pleasure and importance of printed journals
Journal Impact Factor:
PLoS ONE on track to become world's largest journal this year:
Article-level metrics
Licensing
Open Access "is not the same as non-peer-reviewed"!
Public peer review (see also similar section in FUND above)
Manuscript revision - just send the link
Fast lane: PLoS Currents
http://fundscience.org/blog/2009/08/science-publishing-on-the-fast-lane-plus-optionally-in-journals/
Current way is ineffective, since new information is not published in the context of the old:
Efficiency:
http://dmm.biologists.org/content/2/5-6/201 (getting back to the One Big Lab idea)
See also slides 51-54 in
PUBLISH/READ
Context:
Wikis grow context organically:
"Science is already a wiki if you look at it a certain way. It’s just a highly inefficient one -- the incremental edits are made in papers instead of wikispace, and significant effort is expended to recapitulate existing knowledge in a paper in order to support the one to three new assertions made in any one paper." (John Wilbanks, http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2009/07/publishing_science_on_the_web.php )
Wikis grow in number and volume, also for scientific uses: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikis_in_scholarly_communication
Problems with wikis:
Vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges / http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arguing_with_Idiots&curid=24482357&diff=348070022&oldid=348061113
Chances:
Context again: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Life/Related_Articles
Integration with databases:
Duplicate publications ( http://etblast.org/ ) are easily noted in a wiki, due to unique page names:
Alternatives to wikis:
- Google Wave http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/google-wave-ripple-or-tsunami-for-research-2800410 / https://wave.google.com/
If authors had a unique ID, their contributions to human knowledge could all be aggregated, and not just paper counts:
----------------------------------
SOCIAL NETWORKS:
- Can in principle be used for any of these steps, possibly different platforms for different purposes. Key issue: Interoperability, which requires open standards in data and communication formats, plus overcoming significant cultural barriers ( http://ff.im/f6VWP ).
- Are "Breeding like rabbits"
- Start getting attention from funders: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/nov2009/ncrr-02.htm
- Are beginning to be surveyed more systematically:
With image:
Discipline-specific ones:
WAYS
See also: Euroscience is launching a "Young researchers network" at Eurodoc 2010
Link to politics, e.g. gender equality:
Possible side effects of attending online:
Isbella Susa:
Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF)
Presentation:
Torino, July 2nd - 7th
"Hop on Science Bus" from several European countries for students and young researchers
Main topic: Scientific careers in- and outside the academic sector
Complete program: http://www.esof2010.org/
Debating the issues before the conference and following the conference online in real time is possible: Chat, voting, forum, wiki.
--
Most important question of the workshop:
Is it possible to combine the different open web functions in one platform for all scientists, and how should it look like?
Problem: Existing platforms do everything to hold their users. Often, data can't be transferred because of lacking standards (e.g Facebook). Scientists should use open platforms with documented standards.
-------------
Tentative recommendations for the final communiqué of the Eurodoc 2010 conference (all workshop participants - on-site and remote - are invited to participate in rephrasing this draft text).
We need the recommendations in the form "Recognizing that A, we recommend B and C".
The World Wide Web started out as a project to facilitate scientific research and communication, and in the nearly two decades since its inception, it has revolutionized many aspects of our society: from the local to the global level and with a broad range of web-based tools and services that now allow for multiple forms of direct interactions between providers and users of information.
Yet, although scientific research is, at its core, a collaborative endeavour, only few researchers have started to explore these new possibilities. Research would greatly benefit from such direct interactions between participants and from opening up to the wider community.
Young researchers will therefore have to play a leading role in this transition from the paper-based era to web-based research.
Indeed, they would profit immensely from educating themselves and their peers about the chances and the possible drawbacks of doing research in the open via the Web.
Science policy that addresses young researchers should support open collaborative environments for all elements of the scientific process, recognize the role of web-based collaboration in the design of research awards and competitions, and promote a diversification of the metrics and other ways used to assess the impact of a single researcher's work.