Group items tagged

This slideshow provides a very stimulating and entertaining view of the world of open science. It deals with the key dimensions of open science such as the meaning and scope of openness , opportunities in being open, funding , problems and other related issues.

Thanks for sharing. I like the slideshare website; it was fun to just click through some nicely presented information. I am getting a bit confused with all the core reading and additional reading (!right?) and all the activities and whatnot so this was a good way to end my 1hour scheduled time today for this MOOC. I especially liked the hierarchy vs wirearchy slide. :) Peace.

ghee thanks arren7, I am seriously concerned about my" intellectual deficient contributions",...feel better now!:) peace

Me ha parecido que este tema tiene mucha relación con el vídeo Native science and Western science: Possibilities for a powerful collaboration cuando habla de la teoría de la relatividad de Einstein y del concepto del tiempo como punto de referencia occidental.

New Visions in Citizen Science by Anne Bowser and Lea Shanley: * different models that support public contribution, potential challenges, and positive impacts that projects can have on scientific literacy, research, management, and public policy. * Illustrate how citizen science functions at its best demonstrating how open innovation can address agency-specific challenges in new and compelling ways.

Michael Eisen is a researcher at UC Berkley and a co-founder of Public Library of Science. He discusses the news that the American Association for the Advancement of Science named Kent Anderson as its new Publisher, who is a critic of the open access movement. The most interesting thing for me was the mention in his blog post as well as in the comments section by another, that it is perhaps a trend for scholarly publications to produce open access journals. A peculiar motive, to perhaps "own" the open movement? It would be interesting to learn more about this trend, motivations behind it, and the implications on how that affects the OA movement.

And then a quick Google search found an announcement that Nature will be fully open access as of 20 October 2014... but still costs $5,200 USD to cover the article processing charges - perhaps Universities should (will) start to pay these costs instead of the high costs of subscriptions to scholarly journals as they continue to open up their access. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html

Wow--these article publishing charges are ridiculous. I don't know if the scholars whose work gets published in these esteemed journals have budgets that would allow them to cover such fees, but I am sure that I wouldn't be able to get multiple articles covered by grants for my own work in the social sciences. And I'm 99% sure that the public universities I've worked for would not be ponying up that kind of money to cover my publication fees. This seems like yet another way to penalize scholars working in fields that don't get big grants or living in countries that don't have this kind of money to throw around. I prefer the UK's policy of requiring all nationally funded research to be published open access without any publication fees. That's the only way to even the playing field.

COS is dedicated to improving the alignment between scientific values and scientific practices. As a non-profit technology start-up, our team moves quickly from problem to solution, and continuously evaluates and improves our solutions. We blend science and technology in support of open science - transparency and inclusivity.

2012 was a huge year for citizen science. From microbes to Zombie Flies, from sea to space, there was no shortage of opportunities for everyday people to contribute to real scientific discovery. Each year at SciStarter, we analyze our glorious website metrics to identify the most popular projects of the year.

This article describes how the Notification Service of SHARE (SHared Access Research Ecosystem) has come about. It clearly specifies the associations and organisations which have collaborated to alert scientists and others to the status of the latest scientific research being conducted to drive their mutual goals of the advancement of science and access to this research for all.

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.

I think the big theme that open science is profit and has the power of knowledge, many think that the knowledge open to all profit will not exist and the power of knowledge too!

For a broader class of publications, which include scientific journals, see Academic journal. "Science journal" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Science (journal), the scientific journal named "Science". In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research.

Their stories open my head every time I have the opportunity to read. Being a layman in this matter made ​​me see it more closely now! Thank you!

Their links open my head so easily. Although I did not know it, I noticed a subtle difference about it!

"Biohackers: The Politics of Open Science" from SFU's Vancity Office of Community Engagement.

Interesting paper on utilizing citizen science for digitizing natural history collection data. It is nice to get the perspective of how these programs are constructed.

Socientize Project is funded by EU 7th framework program, and hosts several citizen science projects, including SavingEnergy@home (collecting global thermal data), Cell spotting (looking at images of treated cancer cells), Collective Music Experiment (creating music from audio samples), Urban Bees and others. The page also includes links to useful citizen science resources (e.g. Pybossa, EpiCollect, BOINC), policy pecommendations & news regarding citizen science.

A short video explains some important terms about citizen science.

I'll preface this by saying I've shared a few things from the Biodiversity Heritage Library on Twitter. The Biodiversity Heritage Library Blog is a blog that I've been following for a few years. The Biodiversity Heritage Library is a project in coordination with the Internet Archive to digitize historic natural history journals and field notebooks. I find the digitization of field notebooks very interesting in terms of open science. In the module on open science there was a lot of discussion of modern science, but I feel it is equally important to open historic or legacy data.

"Research papers aren't always the easiest pieces of literature to read. Expecting Joe Public to understand all of these articles is simply unrealistic. Whilst they have access to the papers when they're open access, that doesn't mean they're always going to be able make good use of them. That's where social media has its time to shine. More and more scientists are moving to social media in order to promote their research and engage the public, as well as each other. Social media in itself offers the chance to reach out and make science exciting."

"What kinds of knowledge are we going to expect? How we going to incentivize to scientists to share?"

A radical vision of the open access and books: The Political Nature of the Book: On Artists' Books and Radical Open Access. Janneke Adema: http://tinyurl.com/kv5hg2f In this article we argue that the medium of the book can be a material and conceptual means, both of criticising capitalism's commodification of knowledge (for example, in the form of the commercial incorporation of open access by feral and predatory publishers), and of opening up a space for thinking about politics. The book, then, is a political medium. As the history of the artist's book shows, it can be used to question, intervene in and disturb existing practices and institutions, and even offer radical, counter-institutional alternatives. If the book's potential to question and disturb existing practices and institutions includes those associated with liberal democracy and the neoliberal knowledge economy (as is apparent from some of the more radical interventions occurring today under the name of open access), it also includes politics and with it the very idea of democracy. In other words, the book is a medium that can (and should) be 'rethought to serve new ends'; a medium through which politics itself can be rethought in an ongoing manner.

I read his book (Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science) and really loved it. It inspired this blog post of mine: http://www.scopeofscience.com/2014/04/the-need-for-open-science/ Highly recommend that book to anyone who enjoyed his ted talk - it is a quick read!

I love the idea that progress and science being based on communication. Often the idea that I have in my mind is a scientist working alone, and that is never truly how the great break-throughs come, but rather from building on the science that we have learned about previously. I still have a problem with the Author Pay part of Open Access publishing, and it seems like it is not actually "Open" if you have to pay to play. The Utopic Version is really the way that I think of "Open" publishing even with all the pit falls of finding the Utopia. I like the rebirth by giving the onus to the reader to review, and that is a model that works as seen by Wikipedia, because people are willing to aid progress with out conventional compensation. I understand all of the problems with this, but I love the possibility.