Open science
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
F1000 Research: providing clarity on scientific quality | F1000 Research
I promised in my last post to follow up on some recurring themes in many of the discussions that have been ongoing around the plans for F1000 Research . One of the other major issues relates to the idea that our plans will increase dissemination of poor quality science and the subsequent impact of this. Will F1000 Research enhance dissemination of ‘pseudoscience’? No. The argument here has been that due to the use of immediate publication, followed by post-publication peer review on F1000 Research , poor-quality content will be used to provide scientific evidence to further political and other inappropriate agendas.
FRPAA
Open Science at the European Commission
2,902 views Presentation at the Open Knowledge Festival: Open Research and Education Stream, 20 September 2012, Helsinki; also ... Presentation at the Open Knowledge Festival: Open Research and Education Stream, 20 September 2012, Helsinki; also Presentation at the DINI-Jahrestagung - Bausteine für Open Science, 24 September 2012, Karlsruhe; also Belgian Open Access Week: Open Access to Excellence in Research, 22 October 2012, Brussels.
Open science breakthrough of the year 2010: OA journal now largest scientific journal in the world | Research cycle research
Two weeks ago, I had posted a list of candidates for open science breakthroughs of the year 2010, and invited votes on the matter. However, only 13 votes have been cast since (which is even less than for the 2009 breakthroughs , and less than the number of individuals who tweeted about the vote ), so these data won’t yield themselves to any kind of serious analysis, but they are available under a CC0 license if anyone is interested. Nonetheless, to arrive at some sort of ranking, I have converted the range of possible evaluations (Not beneficial/ A small benefit/ A fair advancement/ A great breakthrough/ A revolution) into an arbitrarily chosen point system (-1/ 1/ 2/ 4/ 8; other conversion schemes changed the order, but did not really affect the first and last places) and ranked candidates by the sum of points they garnered this way, in ascending order. WordPress wouldn’t display this part properly, so I put it up here .
In a timely and incisive talk at TEDxWaterloo , Michael Nielsen made the case for open science — the idea that research data and results should be freely available to the public, and that scientists should collaborate more freely with each other and with the public. Since the talk, his book, Reinventing Discovery , has been released, and even more recently the US Congress has introduced controversial legislation to prohibit funding agencies from requiring open access. TED’s Ben Lillie called Nielsen to talk about the politics and difficulties of open science. Your talk got a significant pick-up from the science community and other people starting to discuss the idea of open science.
The difficulties in opening science: Q&A with Michael Nielsen
Monty Python’s rebels ponder all they must replace if they kill the Romans The researcher rebellion against the closed research-and-publishing system, tallied most explicitly in a petition boycotting publisher Elsevier , continues to expand. (The Economist covers it here , and I covered the complaints last year in a feature .)
Is the Open Science Revolution For Real? | Wired Science
Open science is the umbrella term of the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. It encompasses practices such as publishing open research , campaigning for open access , encouraging scientists to practice open notebook science , and generally making it easier to publish and communicate scientific knowledge. Open science began in the 1600s when the societal demand for access to scientific knowledge reached a point where it became necessary for groups of scientists to share resources with each other so that they could collectively do their work. [ 1 ] In modern times there is debate about the extent to which scientific information should be shared.
Open science
Citation: Molloy JC (2011) The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science. PLoS Biol 9(12): e1001195. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195 Published: December 6, 2011 Copyright: © 2011 Jennifer C. Molloy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The Open Knowledge Foundation: Open Data Means Better Science
The OpenScience Project | Open source scientific software
The Tyranny of Pi day March 14 th is \pi -day in the US (and perhaps 4.\overline{666} day in Europe). The idea of a day devoted to celebrating an important irrational number is wonderful — I’d love to see schools celebrate e -day as well, but February 71 st isn’t on the calendar.
What, exactly, is Open Science? | The OpenScience Project
I was recently asked to define what Open Science means. It would have been relatively easy to fall back on a litany of “Open Source, Open Data, Open Access, Open Notebook”, but these are just shorthand for four fundamental goals: Transparency in experimental methodology, observation, and collection of data.Yesterday, Nature – one of the worlds premier scientific journals recognized University of British Columbia scientist Rosie Redfield as one of the top 10 science newsmakers of 2011 . The reason? After posting a scathing attack on her blog about a paper that appeared in the journal Science, Redfield decided to attempt to recreate the experiment and has been blogging about her effort over the past year . As Nature describes it :
