Startseite[sic] -- Wissenschaftskommunikation

Open Science unterschätzt?

Von von INSCICO / Rhine-Waal University / 18. August 2011 / 8 Kommentare
Mehr

Revolutioniert das Internet die wissenschaftliche Kommunikation? In einem Video-Vortrag erinnert Prof. James Boyle, Mitbegründer von Creative Commons, u.a. daran, dass das WWW eigentlich für die Wissenschaft entwickelt wurde. Er beklagt jedoch, dass das Potenzial offener Informationssysteme nach wie vor unterschätzt werde. Der Umgang der Wissenschaft mit dem Web hängt Boyle zufolge um Jahre hinter der sonst üblichen Nutzung hinterher — das was Sönke Bartling kürzlich in unserem Open-Science-Workshop die “Legacy Gap” nannte.

Stichworte: , , ,
Mehr

Kommentare (8)

  1. #1 josef
    20. August 2011

    Danke dafür. Jetzt müssen wir das nur noch anpacken.

  2. #2 ganjaman
    21. August 2011

    we need brainbook. not facebook !

  3. #3 Alexander Gerber
    22. August 2011

    @ganjaman: …and what would you consider qualifying as “brainbook”? Platforms like academia.edu, Researchgate, NatureNetwork or Mendeley?

    And do specific platforms like these on the one hand and general widespread ones like Facebook on the other hand exclude each other or should they not rather complement one another—taking into account that we should always “fish where the fish are”…?

  4. #4 Frank Wappler
    22. August 2011

    Alexander Gerber wrote (22.08.11 · 08:13 Uhr):
    > what would you consider qualifying as “brainbook”? Platforms like academia.edu, Researchgate, NatureNetwork or Mendeley?

    What’s wrong with a platform like ScienceBlogs? — Inadequate LaTeX support ?? …

  5. #5 Alexander Gerber
    22. August 2011

    These are two different “classes”, I would say: (a) Blogs for a direct, personal, transparent, and authentic discouse; (b) Social Networks for an interlinkage between individual researchers, their expertise / subject areas, their publications, etc.

    I suppose what @ganjaman wants to suggest is that the real potential of interactive media in the realm of science lies in exploiting these technologies “smarter”, i.e. properly, e.g. when it comes to semantic search functionalities in scientific literature or to the “amazonisation” of literature search, etc.

  6. #6 Ulfi
    25. August 2011

    I think that the competitive nature of a lot of field prohibit web 2.0 facilities. As long as actual publications define your success, collaborations are to be considered a risk. You can’t claim that an idea was yours when someone else published it (because you foolishly talked with him about this idea).

    Remove the competition and you get web 2.0.

  7. #7 Alexander Gerber
    25. August 2011

    @ulfi

    As long as actual publications define your success, collaborations are to be considered a risk.

    …which is why I am convinced that we have to get into a dialogue with those who actually DEFINE what defines success, e.g. DFG and the respective funding bodies. The challenge is, therefore, much more systemic than technological.

    You can’t claim that an idea was yours when … you foolishly talked … about [it].

    Yes, however, if scientists in the future claimed their findings in a blog FIRST, wouldn’t these findings count as “claimed” just as much as if they had decided for the classic publication path? Wouldn’t this even be an opportunity for a head start compared to those waiting for their papers to be evaluated and accepted and published and read and responded to? Maybe social media in science could become a “pre-step” in such a system?

  8. #8 Sven Türpe
    27. August 2011

    …which is why I am convinced that we have to get into a dialogue with those who actually DEFINE what defines success, e.g. DFG and the respective funding bodies.

    They do not define success. We all, as a society, define success. Given a Nobel Price laureate and a science blogger, which one are you more likely to admire as a successful scientist? Assuming you were an official responsible for a budget, how would you justify spending that budget on the work of either one? How likely do you think would the taxpayer accept your decision and rationale?

    Yes, however, if scientists in the future claimed their findings in a blog FIRST, wouldn’t these findings count as “claimed” just as much as if they had decided for the classic publication path?

    Claiming rarely matters, particularly if a scientist does truly novel and great work. The whole claiming business becomes of practical importance only if a research community sets up a race between groups or individualy. To set up a race, a community must agree on a task that it deems important to accomplish. Like a good computer game, this task must have just the right level of difficulty: hard enough to be challenging, but not harder. Only then can a race commence in which random publication delays may distort the outcome.