Three things, file under "loosely related":
1. If you read my RSS feed, 'scuse the deluge; I went back and assigned a number of posts to the "open access/open science" category.
Speaking of old posts, here are two that never made it out of the "drafts" folder:
2. Peter Suber notices Jean-Claude Bradley's chemistry data blog and points to an entry on JCB's e-learning blog that I've been meaning to highlight:
I think that the part [of open access/open science] that we have yet to embrace is the posting of work fresh out of the test tube. As long as scientific research is published in an article format and its value is determined by a popularity contest of citations and peer-reviewed blessing, there will be little motivation to post work fresh out of the test tube. Especially when issues like competition and tenure are at stake.Update: in comments, Jean-Claude points out that in fact, blogs are better for reporting milestones, overviews and so on. For the fresh-out-of-the-test-tube stuff, he's moved to a hosted wiki which provides version tracking with 3rd party timestamps. These features provide proof of priority, in case it is ever needed.
The reality is that the impact of raw experimental data is usually unknowable at the time when it is generated. It may never be used by anyone (which is a guarantee if kept in a private lab notebook) or it may at some point answer a key question for an agent (human or otherwise) looking for a solution to an important problem.
My opinion at this point is that publishers or any kind of central repositories are not going to be as effective in communicating this kind of raw scientific data, unless it is readily available on the uberdatabases like Google or MSN. That's why Blogger makes an optimal vehicle to communicate raw experimental data: no cost, no gatekeeper and anyone looking on an uberdatabase will find your stuff.
3. Blogging data/ideas: it's not just for science. Here's Rob Helpy-Chalk doing it in philosophy: I just had a think, and My presentation at the ISEE/IAEP.
Comments
Thanks, Jean-Claude. I've updated the entry.
This is definitely a frontier issue that I think many scientists are trying to figure out as we speak. It might not hurt to test the format in a research area that isn't fiercely competitive. Scientists do scoop other scientists, even without blogs, and while you might wag a finger at them, they tend to get away with it.
I'm starting a new blog on my own earth science research, partly because I can't seem to tear myself away from the web. I figure I might as well get some research done while I'm blogging. We'll see how it goes.
Just wondering if you have seen this:
http://www.scientificdebate.com/
Post a comment
RSS Feed
Links:
spousal unit
me
copy
Bloglines account
Simpy account
Connotea account
OpenWetWare userpage
blogroll:
Archives:
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
Since that post we have moved our raw experimental data to a hosted wiki, which is even better mainly because it keeps track of different versions with third party timestamps and makes it easy to find out who-knew-or-did-what-when. The blog format is better used to report milestones and discuss larger issues of the research.