Science 2.0 is not just a passing fad: crowdsourcing the evidence
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.
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.
July 9, 2012 at 4:42 pm
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.
July 9, 2012 at 5:05 pm
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.
July 10, 2012 at 8:05 am
Indeed. The problem is that the gold folks have hijacked the open-access buzzword which might allow them to get their foot in the door.
July 10, 2012 at 8:07 am
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.
July 10, 2012 at 8:08 am
Sorry: salary’s —> salaries (Anton will be responsible for proofreading.
)