Summary of the Open Science session at Eurodoc 2010

Printer-friendly version

''This is the content of the session's Etherpad as of this version, pasted as the session ends.''

This pad serves as a notepad for the Science 2.0 session at the Eurodoc 2010 conference: .
Some of the planning takes place at .

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:".
- A blog post:
- An image:
- Some questions: How many of you (answers in %)

* have not done a Google search within the past 24h before leaving for this conference? 0% [Edit: Number corrected after the session ended]

* 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 30

* do not use any social network online? 0

* have been to 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:
- Breakthroughs of the year in Open Science 2009 -
- states "As a rule, the very best coverage of every paper in the past month was done by a blogger or two or three. "

For those who prefer slides: . A related presentation is at . Other presentations are embedded in several of the posts we will come across.
Start with , structure as in research cycle ( ) and then mention some of the currently most pressing challenges to (and opportunities for) open science, as summarized at .


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 via feeds from

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 )

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 - 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.


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?



Engaging with the public is possible at any stage:

Research/ teaching games:

Citizen science

Conference reporting: / /

Seminars at Second Life

Protocols and measurements

Lab notebooks



Robot scientists:

Problems: How to mashup CC-BY & CC-NC-SA data?


Abstract drafting:

Drafting of full conference paper:

Online poster session

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


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

Current way is ineffective, since new information is not published in the context of the old:

Efficiency: (getting back to the One Big Lab idea)
See also slides 51-54 in

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, )

Wikis grow in number and volume, also for scientific uses:

Problems with wikis:
Vandalism: /
Context again:

Integration with databases:

Duplicate publications ( ) are easily noted in a wiki, due to unique page names:

Alternatives to wikis:
- Etherpad
- Google Wave /

If authors had a unique ID, their contributions to human knowledge could all be aggregated, and not just paper counts:

- 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 ( ).
- Are "Breeding like rabbits"

- Start getting attention from funders:
- Are beginning to be surveyed more systematically: (related threads are at and )
With image:

Discipline-specific ones:


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: (via )

Isbella Susa:
Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF)


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:

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.