Science2.0 1. Controverse. Orientation. Taxinomie. Science2.0 2. Evaluation des enseignants chercheurs. À quoi sert la vulgarisation ? MedHyg.ch. Science2 0 Mounier. Let’s End Anonymous Peer Review. Posted: March 1, 2010 at 9:16 am I have mentioned this here and there. Now I will make a blog entry about it: it’s time to make a public appeal against (anonymous) peer review practice of academic journal articles, PhD proposals, funding applications and so on. I get these requests every now and then and will now make my response public. If you like you can copy-paste it, alter the letter, put it in a wiki somewhere so that others do not have to explain it time and again. In this way the counter arguments against can also grow and become stronger. I am still in doubt if I should make the email public of the journal that wrote the request. In a way it doesn’t matter because this case is about a principle. We have to also undermine the very principle of ranking.
I am not arguing here for more transparency. This is my reply: Dear %JOURNAL_EDITOR%, I am sorry but I do not participate in this dead ritual of anonymous ‘peer review’. Yours, Geert Lovink. Technology | Science enters the age of Web 2.0. Scientists are not always the first to use new web tools You might think that professional research scientists are at the forefront of what the newest tools of the internet can provide in terms of collaboration and the discovery of knowledge. After all, they're frequently plonked down in front of their computers, with all that the web has to offer them easily at hand, right? Well, sort of. "Scientists are all about doing new things but actually we're very conservative about the way that we do them," said Cameron Neylon, a senior scientist for biomolecular sciences at the Science and Technology Facilities Council.
"That's right and proper if you're making big statements about how the world works - so they're relatively slow to take on new kinds of tools. " Slowly, though, that cautious approach to the opportunities provided by Web 2.0 is giving way to new software, and new ways to use the services more familiar outside the research world. 'Herding cats' Recommendations, please Free value. Developing Science 2.0: New Editor Features. Hi there, I'm Patrick and I'm one of the principal developers on ScientificBlogging.com - that means if the site mysteriously crashed, I likely did it. This column is around to help introduce / discuss new features, and talk about what Science 2.0 looks like from a functional perspective.
On the plate today is the new editor features we've uploaded to the site, allowing for more embedded media in your articles, and I'm going to cover some of the important details of what's changed. Buttons Icon Source: you can see, we've updated the appearance of the buttons on the editor to make them a bit more clear. Media Files We've added some new capabilities to the media file uploader. You can also upload .zip files using this editor; they are subject to the same file size restriction.
A Note on Uploaded Media Files: When you upload something using the Media Files form, you'll notice that it looks like this: Embedding Videos. From the Archives: E-Science, Science 2.0, Open Science : Confessions of a Science Librarian. During my summer blogging break, I thought I’d repost of few of my “greatest hits” from my old blog, just so you all wouldn’t miss me so much. This one is from September 3, 2008. There was some nice discussion on Friendfeed that’s worth checking out. Some recent posts that got me thinking about various escience/science 2.0/open science issues: First, Christina gets us rolling with some definitions: More or less, as I said on FriendFeed, I see the terms e-science, science 2.0 and open science bandied about quite a bit these days.
Open science is a newer term, I think, and a little more nebulous to me. So, I’m a little uncomfortable with using open science as a catch-all term for all the four items that Christina mentions, just as I’m a little uncomfortable with e-science as the catch-all. And speaking of getting more openness into science, check out this article, Era of Scientific Secrecy Near End by Robin Lloyd. Many, if not most, scientists are not in the habit of putting things online. In the Future, Doing Science Is Like Blogging | Computers.
MYSTERIOUS DISCOVERY: Frequently Asked Questions! • Can I really make major science discoveries just by reading “nonsense poems”? You bet you can, and that’s why we’re so glad you’re at our Web site! If you can read a popular-science publication (and enjoy it), then you most likely have enough brainpower to help us make massive scientific breakthroughs. • How do I know if I qualify for making these “mysterious discoveries”? By displaying your linguistic comprehension of our stochastic scientometric ontological schemata! • What are “stochastic scientometrics,” and what’s so “ontological” about them? We’re glad you asked that, because many contemporary readers find our language inaccessible! So welcome aboard! Thanks for registering! • Do I have to read boring old science “papers” in difficult foreign languages?
Certainly not! • But I’m just an avid pop-science reader, not a working scientist. No way! • That’s kind of cynical, isn’t it? Yet it’s so true! Technologie - Comment le Web révolutionne la recherche - David Larousserie - Découvertes - nouvelobs.com. Chercheurs 2.0 ? Il y a quelques mois, Olivier Le Deuff écrivait un billet sur son blog pour esquisser un constat d'échec de la science 2.0, comme une bulle qui se dégonflerait avant même d'avoir vraiment grossi.
J'avais à l'époque laissé un commentaire que je voulais moins sceptique et surtout, qui attirait l'attention sur une dimension un peu passée sous silence : le fait que la science 2.0 se fait déjà sur des plateformes non spécialisées, comme Friendfeed. L'article académique issu de ce billet, co-écrit avec Gabriel Gallezot (un nom qui est familier, normal, ce chercheur a commis de nombreux écrits avec Olivier Ertzscheid d'Affordance), vient de sortir. Je me suis précipité dessus et j'y ai trouvé plein d'idées. Les weblogs, représentants numériques des carnets de recherche, d’une certaine vulgarisation scientifique (dissémination sociétale des résultats), de réseautage, d’influence, de stratégies et d’expression envers ses pairs, présentent eux aussi des spécificités à analyser. G. Si G. Le web participatif, Rennes, juin 2009. Academic Productivity » How do you submit seven papers in a month? interview with Dan Navarro.
New to AcademicProductivity.com? Dan posted in his blog that he had managed to get seven papers out in the open literature in January. I had to interview him. AP.com: How do you manage your daily workload? Dan Navarro: A lot more pragmatically than I used to. I put an hour or so aside each morning to cover the miniature administrative rubbish – it’s not really enough time to do it properly, but I’ve started to realise that most of it doesn’t matter very much, so I can cut-and-paste a lot of things (Incidentally: never throw away a good piece of bureaucracy-speak, like a research profile or a course description. You can reuse it about 10 times before anyone starts to care). AP.com: How do you prioritise?
DN: Mostly by looking at next week’s deadlines, and by thinking about the probable consequences of missing them. AP.com: How do you schedule your time and use calendars? AP.com: How do you plan for the future and manage ongoing projects? DN: In the big picture, very poorly. DN: Dunno. La fin du monde par la science, Eugène Huzar. C’est un livre extraordinaire que nous offrent les éditions è®e avec des extraits de 2 ouvrages d’Eugène Huzar parus en 1855 (La fin du monde par la science) et 1857 (L’arbre de la science) non sans un certain écho à l’époque. C’est l’introduction de Jean-Baptiste Fressoz qui est la plus passionnante mais la postface de Bruno Latour sur ce "zozo" vaut le détour aussi, fustigeant "cette manière insensée, autodidacte, prophétique, outrancière, de parler de la Terre et du sort qui l’attend aux mains de la Science et de la Technique".
En fait, il n’y a là qu’une resucée des thèmes chrétiens du péché originel d’avoir goûté à "l’arbre de la science" (on pourrait y ajouter la tour de Babel), la seule originalité étant de faire de la chute un phénomène cyclique ("ce qui a été sera") destiné à se répéter : "L’orgueil de la science, ce vieux péché du monde, qui a été la cause de la chute de l’homme dans le passé, sera encore cause de sa chute dans l’avenir". Les recherches les plus tordues de l'année (IgNobels 2008) Sur la planète science, un petit groupe d'amusés s'inspire des recherches les plus tordues pour distiller un peu de bonne humeur et de réflexion aux lecteurs. Les célèbres IgNobels (les ignobles*), fondés par Marc Abrahams, récompensent chaque année les recherches récentes les plus "improbables", selon l'euphémisme le plus politiquement correct utilisé pour décrire ces études.
Bien qu'il n'y ait qu'un prix de sciences cognitives, nombre des prix décernés cette année attestent de l'omniprésence de la psychologie dans le rang des recherches... disons, surprenantes! Bien qu'elles prêtent parfois à sourire, ces recherches sont également une source de réflexion sur le rôle des chercheurs et de leur discipline. Si d'apparence, on peut douter de l'utilité de telles études, détrompez-vous, la plupart ont une ambition réelle et légitime, et des applications possibles à notre quotidien.
La chips bruyante trompe le cerveau Le prix du placebo : n'achetez rien, mais cher " " Rebecca L. . Source : Chaîne de JournalNumberTheory. A Blog Around The Clock : Carnival of Science/Academia/Publishing? The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Service-Oriented Science -- Foster 308 (5723): 814 -- Science. New information architectures enable new approaches to publishing and accessing valuable data and programs. So-called service-oriented architectures define standard interfaces and protocols that allow developers to encapsulate information tools as services that clients can access without knowledge of, or control over, their More New information architectures enable new approaches to publishing and accessing valuable data and programs.
So-called service-oriented architectures define standard interfaces and protocols that allow developers to encapsulate information tools as services that clients can access without knowledge of, or control over, their internal workings. Thus, tools formerly accessible only to the specialist can be made available to all; previously manual data-processing and analysis tasks can be automated by having services access services. InkSpot. Science. On Demand. Blogs.mp3 (Objet audio/mpeg) PLoS ONE : Publishing science, accelerating research. Médecine 2.0 - nephrohus. Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future? The first generation of World Wide Web capabilities rapidly transformed retailing and information search.
More recent attributes such as blogging, tagging and social networking, dubbed Web 2.0, have just as quickly expanded people’s ability not just to consume online information but to publish it, edit it and collaborate about it—forcing such old-line institutions as journalism, marketing and even politicking to adopt whole new ways of thinking and operating. Science could be next. A small but growing number of researchers (and not just the younger ones) have begun to carry out their work via the wide-open tools of Web 2.0.
And although their efforts are still too scattered to be called a movement—yet—their experiences to date suggest that this kind of Web-based “Science 2.0” is not only more collegial than traditional science but considerably more productive. Select an option below: Customer Sign In. Catalogue - Éditions MultiMondes. Le nouveau monde d’Internet Pascal Lapointe et Josée Nadia Drouin Blogues, baladodiffusion, wikis... Et aussi MySpace, Facebook, YouTube... Le paysage d’Internet se transforme et, avec lui, la façon de communiquer, de se réunir, de dialoguer... Des conversations planétaires s’engagent, des passerelles sont jetées entre des groupes de citoyens parfois très disparates... Et si ces passerelles étaient la planche de salut de la science ?
Certains scientifiques expérimentent de telles passerelles entre leur « tour d’ivoire » et le grand public, voire entre eux-mêmes. À partir de l’expérience qu’ils mènent à l’Agence Science-Presse depuis le tout début de la « mode » des blogues, les auteurs explorent ce phénomène qui, non seulement constitue un nouveau moyen de communication, mais, plus encore, est en train de devenir une nouvelle façon d’être. Contribuez à ce livre ! © Éditions MultiMondes, 2007. COMPUTER SCIENCE: Science 2.0 -- Shneiderman 319 (5868): 1349 -- Science.
Information R/evolution. The Shifted Librarian: 20061016 ILI - Setting the Stage for 2.0. Phil Bradley wants things to make his life and his job easierdoesn’t care what you call it RSS is your friend Watching pages Searching with MSN (put search results in front of users) Incorporate these things into your work, on your own website Encourages libraries to have blogs because it makes it easier to put what you want users to see out there for them to see– 2.0 makes it easier to share data back and forth Showed his browser bookmarks and how messy they are, then noted del.icio.us, diigo, and raw sugar Other options: Furl, Spurl, Squidoo Talking to users:– face to face (excellent, but limited)– telephone (good, but limited)– Email Consider using instant messaging – always on, always available, can demonstrate online search with Messenger Web 2.0 is about communities – easy to start or create community pages– no longer lists of places to go – your start page does it all for you– these can then be made available for other people, too Create your own wiki – PBwiki Podcasting and video.
Folknology. I have come to the conclusion that Enterprise geeks (EGeeks) and web2.0 geeks (W2Geeks) need an emulsifier. Why because they seem to be talking at cross purposes. The W2Geeks want it agile and simple, whilst the EGeeks are into stable and scalable. This of course means that the two groups come at problems from different angles, often not appreciating the complexities of the others environment. Lets just analyse the situation from an outside standpoint for a second. W2Geeks - love things like Ruby On Rails with it's quick development, built in unit testing automatic scafolding etc..
EGeeks - on the other hand like the tried, tested & supported architectures like J2EE, .NET and MQ type message queues. But actually both are just trying to get good reliable, manageable code that works! W2Geeks - like simple, it means they can solve problems quickly, iterate development and user feedback and make products that become optimised. What this space ;) Some posts that got us here :