Scientists and web 2.0

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

1 comments

Comments 1 - 1 of 1 previous next Post a comment

Post a comment
Embed Video
Edit your comment Cancel

10 Favorites

Scientists and web 2.0 - Presentation Transcript

  1. Scientists and web 2.0 Eva Amsen University of Toronto April 2nd, 2009 Allen Press Emerging Trends in Scholarly Publishing™ Seminar
  2. The internet & science • Scientists were among the first people online. • Researchers need the internet to: – Look for papers – E-mail colleagues – Order materials – Search databases – Submit papers
  3. The internet as distraction Source: http://www.ashersarlin.com/archives/2004/09/honestly_who_co.php
  4. Web 2.0 as distraction Source: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=877
  5. Science talk pre-web-2.0 CC-BY-SA Benjamin D. Esham for the Wikimedia Commons
  6. Not everybody participates …and 90% of content is by 1% of users! http://www.90-9-1.com
  7. Engaging scientists online : • Commenting on (published) research articles – “open peer review” – Commenting on published articles • Social networks for scientists • Social bookmarks and reference managers • Blogs – Science blogs – Microblogging (Twitter)
  8. Commenting on research articles • Nature’s “open peer review” trial (2006) – 5% of invited authors participated (71 papers) – Half of the papers received no comments – Total of 92 comments on the remaining half – 5600 page views per week (0.1% of page views leads to a comment) http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html
  9. Commenting on research articles 18% of articles have comments 2% of articles have comments 11% of commenters comments more than once 8% of commenters comments more than once http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/2008/07/who_leaves_comments_on_scienti_1.htm http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/2009/02/commenting_on_scientific_artic.htmll
  10. “…at a conference the most important things happen in the coffee break” - Hans Ulrich Obrist http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge244.html
  11. Social Networks for Scientists • Scientists already have social networks: – Department – Labs on same floor – Colleagues in same field • Conferences • Publication and peer review • Why not move all that online?
  12. There are many social networks for scientists! Too many? Not everyone joins all networks, some people join one. Networks become scattered. There is no default social network for scientists (yet) “What can I do there?” http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/social-networks-for-scientists
  13. Social Bookmarking and Reference Managers • Sharing links (websites or papers) • But is it necessary or useful? – New tools only useful if they outdo the current tools in speed and performance. – Must publish, sharing is not required for job More: http://network.nature.com/people/eva/blog/2008/08/19/how-to-get-scientists-to-adopt-web-2-0-technologies
  14. Science Blogs A science blog is a blog about science, or about being a scientist
  15. The science blogosphere…
  16. Why would senior scientists need to blog? “can humanize scientists and science for the public” “convince other scientists that the web is a useful, important tool for their work” “can help scientists stay current with the field” “increase the visibility of science blogs” “would give blogging more respectability” “expands your network of contacts” “blogging can help to get you noticed” “people want to know ’what’s going on’, “useful for educational purposes” and if you don’t tell them, someone else will… tell them rubbish, more than likely.” “attract people to apply for postdocs in your group” http://network.nature.com/people/eva/blog/2009/02/02/bloggers
  17. Scientists on Twitter 358 “scientwists” as of 31/3/2009, collected by David Bradley @sciencebase http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/100-scientific-twitter-friends
  18. But… Information comes by very fast Very little of what others say is of professional interest to me (And very little of what I say is of professional interest to anyone!) More reasons why scientists won’t use Twitter: http://nachiket.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/why-scientists-wont-use-twitter/
  19. Why scientists don’t like web 2.0 • Image of web 2.0 • Lack of familiarity with new tools • Lack of time • (Perceived) lack of personal/career benefits • Fear of being scooped or losing job
  20. Why scientists do like web 2.0 Source: http://www.ashersarlin.com/archives/2004/09/honestly_who_co.php
  21. How to get more scientists using web 2.0 tools? • Do we really need to? – Does it save time? – Does it make work easier/better? – Can it be used passively? (90-9-1) – Peer pressure: Is everyone using it?
  22. More info • Everything I used (and more) is here: http://bit.ly/onlinescience • Especially note: Science 2.0: Social Not Working transcript: http://bit.ly/socialnotworking
  23. Contact information Eva Amsen eva.amsen@utoronto.ca http://claimid.com/easternblot

+ easternbloteasternblot, 7 months ago

custom

1005 views, 10 favs, 0 embeds more stats

Why are some web 2.0 tools not catching on so well more

More info about this document

© All Rights Reserved

Go to text version

  • Total Views 1005
    • 1005 on SlideShare
    • 0 from embeds
  • Comments 1
  • Favorites 10
  • Downloads 29
Most viewed embeds

more

All embeds

less

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

Cancel
File a copyright complaint
Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

Categories