Science 2.0 and all that

telescoper:

I cam across this on Twitter today and thought I’d share it. Although I have written at various times about open access and the virtues of sharing scientific data, I hadn’t realised that such things came under the umbrella of “Science 2.0“, a term which is quite new to me. This post contains some very interesting ideas and information on the subject.

Originally posted on Science 2.0 study:

We’re approaching the final stage of our study. So far, we have  opened up our bibliography on our Mendeley group here; our notes through this very blog; our model for open science; and our draft policy recommendations for EU. And we’ve benefited from your comments and insight.

Now, we need your help to improve the evidence about the importance of Science 2.0, if we want policy-makers to take it seriously.

Therefore, we share the final presentation that we have presented to the European Commission, DG RTD here.

Help us improving it, by gathering more data and evidence, showing that Science 2.0 is important and disruptive, and that it’s happening already. In particular, we ask to share evidence and data on the take-up of Science 2.0: how many scientist are adopting it? With what benefits?

We ask all people interested in Science 2.0 to share the evidence at hand, by adding

View original 15 more words

About these ads

5 Responses to “Science 2.0 and all that”

  1. Anton Garrett Says:

    I see that some sociology professor called Finch has proposed an author-pays system which means that people are supposed to cough up 1750 pounds per paper for the privilege of publishing their own work. Don’t tell me that the administrative costs of refereeing and running an online journal which publishes some 50 papers per month costs that much. Let’s reorganise online, make on-paper journal publishers superfluous, and run the new system with a tiny fraction of the money saved in library subscriptions. The Finch report belongs in the lavatory, not the laboratory.

    • telescoper Says:

      Quite. The so-called “Gold” Open Access model is worse than the current system. Scientists need to do it themselves and bypass all the stupidity being thrown at them from above.

    • Someone should suggest at the next RAS meeting that the RAS hire Anton and me to set up an online replacement for MNRAS when the current contract expires. We will ask for only modest salary’s—Peter’s salary will be the benchmark—which will be much cheaper than the current model.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,698 other followers

%d bloggers like this: