• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Science2.0 or "How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet Another Social Network for Science?"
 

Science2.0 or "How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet Another Social Network for Science?"

on

  • 9,663 views

Slides prepared for sci.bzaar.net. I played the Devil\'s advocate about "why researchers didn\'t jump on the bandwagon of collaboration2.0"

Slides prepared for sci.bzaar.net. I played the Devil\'s advocate about "why researchers didn\'t jump on the bandwagon of collaboration2.0"

Statistics

Views

Total Views
9,663
Views on SlideShare
9,341
Embed Views
322

Actions

Likes
16
Downloads
189
Comments
2

15 Embeds 322

http://numerosybosques.blogspot.com 180
http://numerosybosques.blogspot.com.es 64
http://www.gnuband.org 26
http://sci.bzaar.net 18
http://www.slideshare.net 10
http://www.mybestcv2.co.il 7
http://wiki-urfist.unice.fr 4
http://paper.li 4
http://1876534381.nvmodules.netvibes.com 3
http://numerosybosques.blogspot.mx 1
http://numerosybosques.blogspot.com&_=1326455472015 HTTP 1
http://www.parasaber.com.br 1
https://mandev2.blackboard.com 1
http://209.85.129.132 1
https://lms.kku.edu.sa 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as OpenOffice

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Science2.0 or "How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet Another Social Network for Science?" Science2.0 or "How happy is a researcher discovering the existence of Yet Another Social Network for Science?" Presentation Transcript

    • 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_address]
        • http://gnuband.org
      License: Creative Commons (see last slide for details)
    • <me> research in computer science since 2000 fbk.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” ;-) </me>
    • <where> Fondazione Bruno Kessler – Centro Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (ex IRST) Trento, Italy ~200 researchers Site: http://cit.fbk.eu
    • <where> Fondazione Bruno Kessler – Centro Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (ex IRST) Trento ~200 researchers http://cit.fbk.eu Come to visit me and give a talk! </where> ADD PHOTO OF TRENTINO! Come to visit me and give a talk! </where>
    • 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
    • Slides 15 th Century: One person can make major contributions to many areas of science Mankind’s Knowledge Human Brain use contribute Amount of knowledge one brain can mange Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) (slide borrowed from Katy Borner)
    • Human Brain use contribute (slide borrowed from Katy Borner) 20 th Century: One person can make major contributions to a few areas of science Albert Einstein (1879-1955 ) Mankind’s Knowledge Amount of knowledge one brain can mange
    • Human Brain use contribute (slide borrowed from Katy Borner) Mankind’s Knowledge Amount of knowledge one brain can mange 21 th Century: One person can make major contributions to a specific area of science
    • Human Brains use contribute (slide borrowed from Katy Borner) Mankind’s Knowledge Amount of knowledge one brain can mange 21 th Century: One person can make major contributions to a specific area of science
    • Human Brains use contribute A brain network !!! But until we have brain interfaces (brainlogging?!?), a social network would do it. Mankind’s Knowledge Amount of knowledge one brain can mange 21 th 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, &quot;Uh, Yet Another Social Network for knowledge and ideas sharing!”
      • ” Wow, I was so waiting for it!&quot;
      • ... 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?: &quot;what if people still my ideas before I publish them in a traditional paper?&quot;)
      • arxiv.org
        • tipping point reached: &quot;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&quot;, 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 &quot;losing&quot; 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/