coComments related to CameronNeylon

I've got to say this sounds li

2008-07-26T14:54:30.738+02:00

I've got to say this sounds like a positively lunatic travel schedule but have a good rest up in the north. Lovely weather up in Aberdeen last week and it looks like its going to hold.

Greg, it may just be that I've

2008-07-19T07:50:24.334+02:00

Greg, it may just be that I've had too much of the koolaid but I think there are a number of things that are qualitatively different now. Firstly the web now works - there are real world examples of successful companies building around open architectures - there are clear demonstrations of how network effects can be effective - and not to put too fine a point on it some of the most successful of the people who built these things are putting money into research. Second we now have a thriving OA publishing community and a strong steer from funding bodies and institutions, as well as the community, that literature should be available. If we combine this with a re-invention of 'good science practice' we are no longer actually talking about a revolution, just using the tools available to do what we should have done all along (make the data available on publication at a minimum). Finally I think we have the tools available, or nearly available, that will actually let people demonstrate the power of open approaches. We don't have big success stories yet but I think they are on the way. Once it is shown it can be done there will in my view be a stampede. Reward structures are broken - but scientists will still beat a path to the nearest bandwagon if they think it will get them ahead :) I think the reward structures will catch up once someone shows this is way of landing serious grant funding and writing serious papers. Setting up standards (or aspirations) in advance is nice but in practice the rewards are for being successful, or at least being seen to be successful. So I think things are different now - I think there is a bigger and more powerful movement and I think the policy bods and funders are behind this in a way they haven't been before. So I think we are better situated. Doesn't make it easy to change reward structures but it makes it easier. One of the refreshing things I heard at the meeting was James Boyle saying 'These reward structures. Lets just change them.' Now coming from me that statement would be nonsense - but as heads of school and senior professors start saying it - and where they have the power to do so - things will start changing. I beleive. I hope note to be proved wrong.

oops, think I broke the link.

2008-05-14T23:20:04.583+02:00

oops, think I broke the link. It was to the editorial in Nature, date of 15 May 2008.

I'd love to see a 'plus origin

2008-05-14T22:59:28.662+02:00

I'd love to see a 'plus original research data' button on google scholar that would add in all the relevant freely available research data. And as Naom Harel pointed out over at my place we really don't need more reasons (may require subscription to Nature) for making all the relevant raw data available.

Michael Barton has actually re

2008-05-14T22:05:22.477+02:00

Michael Barton has actually registered http://www.opennotebookscience.org/ but it is just an empty wiki at the moment because people have been too busy :) We do need a web presence for this kind of thing.

Re: Michael Albert's comment I

2008-05-14T10:28:46.497+02:00

Re: Michael Albert's comment I think we desperately need to get beyond the concept of 'publishable' (or worse 'published') = 'true'. We often get this criticism when we talk about Open Notebook Science, particularly the idea we might expand it into undergraduate labs on live science projects. 'But it might be wrong!' is the objection. Well, yes, but so potentially is any piece of information. Filtering is crucial. Peer review is one type of filter. We need to develop other social, technical, and personal, filter systems to handle both the volume, characteristics, and quality of the data that is already overwhelming us. But what I actually came here to comment on was; Why blog your ideas online, when someone else could be working on a paper on the same subject? This isn’t speculation, it’s already happening, and sometimes the blog posts are better - but try telling that to a tenure review committee. And this is why it is so important for those of us who are on tenure commitees or interview panels to ask questions about 'other contributions' and to encourage the people we mentor to include them. What we can't expect is for young scientists to go into this like cannon fodder. Forging a scientific career is about taking risks but we have to support people through this.