''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 http://ff.im/gaWDe .
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:".
Eurodoc2010 - Details on the conference and the session itself are available via the session's web page. Most of the session will make use of an Etherpad-based clickstream (embedded below) but there will also be some slides, embedded further below, and a discussion group at Friendfeed, embedded at the bottom of this page.
I think that awards should start to recognize that research is a collaborative endeavour and not always single out individuals. At the Early Career Stage that this award targets, it is practically impossible to differentiate between the top 10% (or so) of candidates -- what criteria would you use when the only simple metrics available are at the level of journals and articles and most of the few pieces published in there have been the work of many, including the candidate? Web-native metrics like karma systems (e.g.
Two proposals for the Euroscience Open Forum 2010 have been submitted by Eurodoc and accepted on Nov 10, 2009:
"What would science look like if it were invented today? "
This will be a debate on how new communication tools such as wikis and other collaborative environments, blogs and microblogs can enrich scientific communication, how public post-publication peer review and contribution-based metrics can work. Special focus will be put on how young researchers can benefit from Open Access and Science 2.0 tools.
More information on the topic can be found here.
"New comparable data on young researcher's mobility patterns available: What are the consequences for European Research Policy?"
Next Euroscience Open Forum will take place on 2 to 7 of July, 2010 in Torino, Italy. I think it is the ideal forum to talk also about new science communciation tools.
That why I am proposing here a session on young researchers and Science 2.0. for the Career Programme of ESOF 2010.
We still need include names of interested experts to join the discussions with Second Life, Friendfeed or similar services in the proposal. The deadline for proposals for ESOF is September, 30.
The exact time within the frame of 2-7. July 2010 will be fixed later, taking into account the availabilities of the participants. It will be an one hour session. So is anybody interested to join the discussions?
I am wondering how far we can get with "Open X" movements in science and research, and I will combine my musings about this with a recommendation to attend a satellite event at the Euroscience Open Forum 2008 in Barcelona.
First, let's consider how far we have come in terms of opening up the research process:
* Open Access in the narrow sense, i.e. to published or at least peer-accepted research results, is real for a substantial share of research output and rapidly gaining ground (for most recent updates, click here).
* Open Access to the scholarly review process is gaining ground (public or interactive peer review, e.g. here).
* Open Access to empirical data (Open Data) is moving forward, too.
* Open Access to software (Open Source) is driving many aspects of society, including wikis and many research projects.
* Open Access to encyclopedic knowledge is becoming real on the heels of Wikipedia and Citizendium.
* Open Access to lab notebooks is being experimented with at OpenWetWare.
To sum up, there are not too many aspects of research that currently remain entirely in the dark. They basically boil down to grant writing (an attempt is here) as well as the associated review and grant allocation procedures, bookkeeping (which is partly open in much of Scandinavia, within the wider framework of Open Government), the actual research and data analysis, and to writing up the results for publication.
I do not see any technical issues prohibiting complete openness of the whole research cycle, and so I deem it a valid
target to aim at, already at the current stage of technology. However, people more involved with the practical implementation of these things may have more complex views on these matters, and so I am glad to see that such topics found their way into the program of ESOF 2008, in the form of a satellite event entitled Collaborating for the future of open science where experts will discuss them.