This link has been bookmarked by 69 people . It was first bookmarked on 19 Jul 2008, by Roger Chen.
-
27 Sep 11
-
26 Aug 11
-
16 Jul 09
-
14 Jul 09
Gosia StergiosHow can Internet benefit science? Is online science a myth? Examples of tools and technologies, "Science is an example par excellence of creative collaboration, yet scientific collaboration still takes place mainly via face-to-face meetings. With the exce
eScience new_technologies_research information_behavior scholarly_practice GKEN
-
12 Jul 09
-
02 Jul 09
-
30 Jun 09
Rashid Al-YahyaiHow scientist use web2 differently
-
stracciatellaAllerlei schöne Gedanken zu gelebter Wissenschaft, in ein paar hundert Jahren kommt das auch in den Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften an. [Michael Nielsen, 2008-07-17]
-
18 May 09
-
17 May 09
-
02 May 09
-
19 Feb 09
-
15 Feb 09
-
11 Jan 09
-
03 Dec 08
-
21 Nov 08
-
16 Sep 08
-
15 Sep 08
-
03 Sep 08
-
01 Sep 08
Lisa SpiroWe should aim to create an open scientific culture where as much information as possible is moved out of people’s heads and labs, onto the network, and into tools which can help us structure and filter the information. This means everything - data, scientific opinions, questions, ideas, folk knowledge, workflows, and everything else - the works. Information not on the network can’t do any good.
-
29 Aug 08
-
27 Aug 08
-
Jonathan SmithUses FriendFeed as an example of a scientific collaboration tool
-
25 Aug 08
-
21 Aug 08
-
20 Aug 08
-
19 Aug 08
-
. A secretive culture of discovery was a natural consequence of a society in which there was often little personal gain in sharing discoveries.
-
Why were Hooke, Newton, and their contemporaries so secretive?
-
the great physicist Michael Faraday could advise a younger colleague to “Work. Finish. Publish.”
-
the first scientific journals weren’t created until three years later, in 1665.
-
The internet offers us the first major opportunity to improve this collective long-term memory, and to create a collective short-term working memory, a conversational commons for the rapid collaborative development of ideas
-
The process of scientific discovery - how we do science - will change more over the next 20 years than in the past 300 years.
-
The first is to view online tools as a way of expanding the range of scientific knowledge that can be shared with the world
-
There is a second and more radical way of thinking about how the internet can change science, and that is through a change to the process and scale of creative collaboration itself, a change enabled by social software such as wikis, online forums, and their descendants.
-
Science is an example par excellence of creative collaboration, yet scientific collaboration still takes place mainly via face-to-face meetings. With the exception of email, few of the new social tools have been broadly adopted by scientists, even though it is these tools which have the greatest potential to improve how science is done.
-
What we’ll find is that there are major cultural barriers which are preventing scientists from getting involved, and so slowing down the progress of science.
-
The problem all these sites have is that while thoughtful commentary on scientific papers is certainly useful for other scientists, there are few incentives for people to write such comments
-
Some people find this contrast curious or amusing; I believe it signifies something seriously amiss with science, something we need to understand and change.
-
These failures of science online are all examples where scientists show a surprising reluctance to share knowledge that could be useful to others
-
We should aim to create an open scientific culture where as much information as possible is moved out of people’s heads and labs, onto the network, and into tools which can help us structure and filter the information. This means everything - data, scientific opinions, questions, ideas, folk knowledge, workflows, and everything else - the works. Information not on the network can’t do any good.
-
As we have seen, however, science faces a unique set of forces that inhibit open culture - the centuries-old subsidy of old ways of sharing knowledge - and this requires a new understanding of how to overcome those forces.
-
-
15 Aug 08
-
Carlos MestreThe difficulties of the science 2.0, and how the science has been stagnate in the jornals reviews and the use of e-mail.
-
14 Aug 08
-
-
-
11 Aug 08
-
Bernice Bowersexamples of culture change and incentives
-
26 Jul 08
-
physics preprint arXiv, which lets physicists share preprints of their papers without the months-long delay typical of a conventional journal, and GenBank, an online database where biologists can deposit and search for DNA sequences.
-
physics preprint arXiv
-
the Journal of Visualized Experiments, which lets scientists upload videos which show how their experiments work, and open notebook science, as practiced by scientists like Jean-Claude Bradley and Garrett Lisi, who expose their working notes to the world.
-
We should aim to create an open scientific culture where as much information as possible is moved out of people’s heads and labs, onto the network, and into tools which can help us structure and filter the information. This means everything - data, scientific opinions, questions, ideas, folk knowledge, workflows, and everything else - the works. Information not on the network can’t do any good.
-
The challenge of achieving a more open culture is also being confronted in popular culture. People such as Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, Yochai Benkler, Cory Doctorow, and many others have described the benefits openness brings in a networked world, and developed tools such as Creative Commons licensing and free and open source software to help promote a more open culture, and fight the forces inhibiting it. As we have seen, however, science faces a unique set of forces that inhibit open culture - the centuries-old subsidy of old ways of sharing knowledge - and this requires a new understanding of how to overcome those forces.
-
Perhaps most notably, in April 2008 the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandated that every paper written with the support of their grants must eventually be made open access.
-
The arXiv is an excellent and widely-used tool, with more than half of all new papers in physics appearing there first.
-
a citation tracking service called SPIRES decided they would extend their service to include both arXiv papers and conventional journal articles. SPIRES specializes in particle physics, and as a result it’s now possible to search on a particle physicist’s name (example), and see how frequently all their papers, including arXiv preprints, have been cited by other physicists.
-
What FriendFeed allows users to do is set up what’s called a lifestream. As an example, my lifestream is set up to automatically aggregate pretty much everything I put on the web, including my blog posts, del.icio.us links, YouTube videos, and several other types of content:
-
If you’d like to read more, I recommend Bill Hooker’s series of essays on open science, Mitchell Waldrop’s article in Scientific American, and the Science Commons as starting places. There are some great communities of people online engaged in building a more open scientific culture - many of those people can be found in the Life Scientists and Science2.0 rooms on FriendFeed. Check them out.
-
-
24 Jul 08
Michel BauwensHow can the internet improve the way we do science? There are two useful ways to answer this question.
-
22 Jul 08
-
21 Jul 08
-
20 Jul 08
-
chemblaicsThe diagram about growing the size of shareable data is particularly nice.
toread science future collaboration social open internet information
-
19 Jul 08
-
18 Jul 08
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.