
The Royal Society's report on open science - michael_nielsen
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/
======
mukaiji
Anyone in the bay area interested in building better tools for researchers? I
did materials research at Stanford and was stunned by how tech-backward most
sectors of academic research can be.

------
excuse-me
Once again they manage to get it completely and entirely wrong

>Scientists need to be more open among themselves and with the public and
media

At least in the physical sciences we couldn't be more open. We even have to
schmooze 'contacts' in the press to get our results mentioned. We are total
publicity whores.

>Greater recognition needs to be given to the value of data gathering,
analysis and communication

By whom? I think most experimental scientists are pretty convinced of the
value of gathering data!

>Common standards for sharing information are required to make it widely
usable

Oh dear, I see another huge government plan for another over complex family of
data formats. HDF meets the semantic web. With lots of competing Eu, NATO,
International committees all meeting in nice places for years withotu
producing anything that is usable

>Publishing data in a reusable form to support findings must be mandatory

Fine but probably pointless. The raw data is available, it's the data
processing that is the argument.

>More experts in managing and supporting the use of digital data are required

Cut researchers, hire more "digital media interface facilitators"!

>New software tools need to be developed to analyse the growing amount of data
being gathered

We do - we spend most of our time writing < bleep >ing software. The average
experimental physicist writes more lines of < bleep >ing code than the average
programmer. And thanks to the unique way in which UK academia is funded we did
it all with open source software. If we had had decent funding in the 90s we
might have used IDL, mathematica, Matlab and tied everything up in proprietry
formats - but we didn't so we didn't

NEWS guys - the problem isn't the data - it's the papers. If I want the next
job I need publications. they have to be in proper journals to count. The
journals not only charge money, they screw us over - you want to buy the
Astrophysical Journal at a cost of approx 1 staff member/year? Then you also
have to subscribe to the Ecuadorian journal of fish spotting. Want online
access, fine, but you still have to pay page charges to publish in it and
still pay extra for color 'pages'

If the Royal Society had any purpose - beyond big lunches - it would be to do
what it originally did 400 years ago. It should run it's own reputable FREE
online journal with proper referees, a citations score where I could publish
results and get a job. Without having to do all the staged press releases,
minimal publishable unit, getting a story on the news, interesting Discovery
channel - and all the other chicanery I had to do!

~~~
davecap1
I don't think they have it wrong... they're merely spinning it in such a way
to keep publishers in the picture. I think a lot of what they're saying is
valid though.

In the biological sciences, there is a huge need for more openness. The stakes
are just too high for many researchers to share data that hasn't yet been
published, and the vast majority of researchers are still deathly afraid of
being scooped.

I think there needs to be a better way to write and publish articles in the
first place... some way to make it easy to embed different data types (videos,
3d models, 3d graphs, large datasets, code) into papers. Making a replacement
for Word (maybe an online, collaborative editor integrated with Mendeley?)
would probably be a good step in this direction.

~~~
delinquentme
I keep hearing about how much fear is involved in pre-publication sharing ...
I'd love a giant list of those individuals who have _ACTUALLY_ experienced
this and the context in which it happened.

Clearly this is an area which could be capitalized on... and as we're talking
about truly novel information the value is almost guaranteed.

~~~
cing
I think every scientific lab has a story of someone in the group being scooped
for whatever reason. From my experience it's most often from presenting
unpublished work at a conference or presenting data where next logical step
for publication is obvious.

In my own experience, from conferences and word-of-mouth, I know the X other
labs in the world that are doing the same project as me. If I was involved in
pre-publication sharing and one of these X individuals published first, my
years of work would no longer be accepted in a top journal and my publication
record would suffer.

My dream would be to have a prestigious journal that publishes the
reproduction of an entire experiments rather than only novel discoveries. All
labs already do this, reproduce published results, but it is rarely published.

