arXiv.org
Science2.0
Science2.0, or
How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet Another
Social Network for Science?
Paolo Massa
FBK - Trento, Italy
[email protected]
http://gnuband.org
License: Creative Commons (see last slide for details)
research in computer science since 2000fbk.eu, unitn.it blogging
since 2003 http://gnuband.org blogging on Nature (wow?)
http://network.nature.com/blogs/user/paolo-massa/
2.0 enthusiast I tried all of 2.0 things ;-)
Fondazione Bruno Kessler Centro Ricerca Scientifica e
Tecnologica (ex IRST) Trento, Italy ~200 researchers Site:
http://cit.fbk.eu
Fondazione Bruno Kessler Centro Ricerca Scientifica e
Tecnologica (ex IRST)Trento~200 researchershttp://cit.fbk.euCome to
visit me and give a talk!
ADD PHOTO OF TRENTINO!
Come to visit me and give a talk!
OUTLINE
What is research and what a researcher does
Research2.0 examples
Why researchers didn't embrace 2.0?
Prepared for sci.bzaar.net (May 17th, 2008 Milan)
In time of hysteria2.0 and enthusiasm2.0, let me play the
Devil's advocate.
Q: How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet
Another Social Network for Science?
What is research and how it changed
15th Century: One person can make major contributions to many
areas of scienceMankinds Knowledge
Human Brain
usecontribute
Amount of knowledge one brain can mange
Slides
Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)(slide borrowed from Katy
Borner)
Human Brain
usecontribute
(slide borrowed from Katy Borner)20th Century: One person can
make major contributions to a few areas of scienceAlbert
Einstein(1879-1955 )Mankinds KnowledgeAmount of knowledge one brain
can mange
Human Brain
usecontribute
(slide borrowed from Katy Borner)Mankinds KnowledgeAmount of
knowledge one brain can mange21th Century: One person can make
major contributions to a specific area of science
Human Brains
usecontribute
(slide borrowed from Katy Borner)Mankinds KnowledgeAmount of
knowledge one brain can mange21th Century: One person can make
major contributions to a specific area of science
Human Brains
usecontribute
A brain network!!!But until we have brain interfaces
(brainlogging?!?),a social network would do it.
Mankinds KnowledgeAmount of knowledge one brain can mange21th
Century: One person can make major contributions to a specific area
of science
So yes, social networks do make sense for research
(amplify single brain contribution)
We are smarter than me
The Wisdom of Crowds
Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom
Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations
And research is sharing and collaboration by definition!
So why researchers didn't jump on the bandwagon of
collaboration2.0?
A researcher's day (7/7) (and also an example of how not to make
a slide! ;)
Research:
- Reading journals
- Checking for conferences and deadlines
- Think about ideas
- Check what collaborators are doing
- Check what students are doing
- Write one or two papers and submit them
- Go to conferences and workshops
- Organize conferences and workshops
- Review papers
- Emails
- Browsing
Burocracy
Projects:
- Try to acquire new projects
-- look for partners
-- look for funds
-- write project proposals
- Manage acquired projects
-- find people to work
-- monitor what they are doing them
-- write reports
-- go to projects meetings
Teaching:
- think and prepare lectures (slides)
- give lecture
- prepare exam, give exam, correct exam
According to the university, the duties of professors are 50%
administration, 50% teaching, 50% research. Order is relevant.
Moshe Vardi
(found in Fabio Massacci homepage at
http://www.ing.unitn.it/~massacci/ )
But who's got time these days?
Am I successful?
How is a researcher evaluated?
Rewards (such as funding or tenure) given based on:
(1) publications, preferably first-author, preferably in
so-called high-impact journals;
(2) citations, in the same journals and
(3) previous rewards - demonstrated ability in securing
funding.
So, "Uh, Yet Another Social Network for knowledge and ideas
sharing!
Wow, I was so waiting for it!"
... not really!
Issues with YASN4Science
More contacts to keep up with
More content to keep up with
Time spent there is not recognized
My ideas are published by someone else
Research2.0 examples
1) Generic social network for science
2) Early publication/spreading systems
3) DIY self-publishing
4) Collaborative wikipedia-like knowledge banks
5) Social bookmarking for science
1) Generic social network for science
Example: network.nature.com
(forums, blogs, faces,...)
Threats:
- my contribution not recognized
- my ideas stolen
1) Generic social network for science
Example: network.nature.com
(forums, blogs, faces,...)
Threats:
- my contribution not recognized
- my ideas stolen
Opportunity: recognize work (associate a journal!)
JoVE.com: Journal of Visualized Experiments
1.1) Specific social network for science
Give it a purpose!!!
Example: myexperiment.org
Goal: Make reproduction of experiments easier!!!
Example: NatureJobs, Scilinks (linkedin for scientists)
Goal: finding jobs or finding candidates for job
2) Early publication/spreading systems
precedings.nature.com
failure?: "what if people still my ideas before I publish them
in a traditional paper?")
arxiv.org
tipping point reached: "gives an (accepted) way of claiming
priority on ideas, better than keeping it secret, physicists
struggle to put their ideas out on arxiv as soon as possible",
already citable)
arXiv.org
3) DIY self-publishing (blog!)
You write electronic documents anyway, open a blog and writing a
post pasting your paper is easy, still requires some techiness.
Could blogging more harmful to a career than helpful?
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/11/bloggers
Personal experience: few citations I got (and invitation to
speak and visit) via my blog. Also journalists read your blog
(found via search engines).
3) DIY self-publishing (slides, videos)
... also for slides, experiments, ...
- slides on slideshare.net
easy to do it works
- videos on youtube, videolectures.net, scivee, ...
4) Social bookmarking for science
Examples: citeulike.org,
connotea.org,
bibsonomy.org
Like del.icio.us but for scientific papers
Threat: I get in my RSS reader 25 new papers tagged as trust per
day!!! too much content!!! I was much happy before!!! At least I
didn't know!!!
5) Collaborative knowledge banks
Example: openwetware.org
Wiki for biology, editable only by biology scholars
Most successful example of Science2.0!
Eat your own dog food: started/used by 2 MIT centres!
Tipping point reached: Now if you are not there, you don't
exist.
Wiki dynamics: from users to contributor!
So, what is the reason for lack of adoption of Web2.0 tools by
researchers?
Research1.0 (email) and Research 0.1 (physical meetings) tools
work well enough!!!
Spreading
1.0: papers in conferences and journals
2.0: posts in blogs
Collaboration, networking, contact
1.0: email and conferences
2.0: social networking sites
Find best resources:
1.0: journals (peer-reviewed! broken but still somehow
working)
2.0: digg-like, citeulike, popular, ... (community!)
Summary
Researchers already have 1.0 and 0.1 tools that work well
enough
2.0 tools:
- require a lot of time (in addition!) and don't seem to offer
too much in addition
- no attribution for work, risk of "losing" ideas,
- no need for even more contacts
- no need for even more content
How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet
Another Social Network for Science?
Not too much ... ;-)
Thank you!
Questions?
Interesting discussions to follow
Why web2.0 is failing in biology
http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/
A panel of science web publishers said scientists had
consistently shunned wikis, tagging, and social networks, and have
even proven reticent to leave
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/sxsw_science_web_2/
License of the presentation
These slides are released under
Creative Comamons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5
You are free:
* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to make derivative works
* to make commercial use of the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified
by the author or licensor.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work,
you may distribute the resulting work only under a license
identical to this one.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others
the license terms of this work.
* Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission
from the copyright holder.
Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the
above.
More info at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
Muokkaa otsikon tekstimuotoa napsauttamalla
Muokkaa jsennyksen tekstimuotoa napsauttamalla
Toinen jsennystaso
Kolmas jsennystaso
Neljs jsennystaso
Viides jsennystaso
Kuudes jsennystaso
Seitsems jsennystaso
Kahdeksas jsennystaso
Yhdekss jsennystaso
Click to edit the title text format
Click to edit the outline text format
Second Outline Level
Third Outline Level
Fourth Outline Level
Fifth Outline Level
Sixth Outline Level
Seventh Outline Level
Eighth Outline Level
Ninth Outline Level
