Recent replies to "Any brilliant ideas for stimulating cultural change and encouraging more open science?"

Reply from Marylka Yoe Uusisaari

Marylka Yoe Uusisaari — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:14:35 -0000

I would have to agree with Anonymous in that after writing a bad review, such as one where one did not have time or interest to go through the article carefully enough, it surely would be more comfortable if the reviewee would not know the reviewer’s identity. ;)

But, as we’re probably speaking about critical reviews – and at least I would be delighted to know who wrote those comments, so that should I have the chance to meet IRL or otherwise, I could actually continue the communication over the problematic issues!

Truth is, though, that sometimes we do write subpar reviews. Which, of course, is a bad social engineering strategy.

Reply from anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:06:29 -0000

I disagree with Paul Wicks. Identifying yourself in bad reviews is a bad social engineerig strategy. Creates unnecessary awkward social situations when you meet your reviewed in a congress, for example…

Reply from Jean-Claude Bradley

Jean-Claude Bradley — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:40:33 -0000

Egon,
I feel very fortnunate for having found some awesome collaborators. You’re right – as a scientist that is a pretty big payoff for going open.

Reply from Paul Wicks

Paul Wicks — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:01:03 -0000

Bite the bullet: Put your name to reviews, even if they’re not positive.

Reply from Egon Willighagen

Egon Willighagen — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:24:12 -0000

He guys, welcome to the world of capitalism.

It’s not about making small or large steps, it’s just about “what do I gain if I would do that?”. So, I would actually suggest, do make this big step that allows people to get involved by showing them what huge advantages they get in return.

Check for example, Jean-Claude’s OpenScience work… by being open, he get other people to do things for him (run assays, virtual screening, docking, etc…) Big return on investment, I would say.

Also think about the blogs… by being open, bloggers get comments from others, get to learn about new things from other blogs, etc. Again, it is about ROI.

I think all those who are interested in openness from an idealogical point of view will get along by themselves, it’s that big blog of people who do not have time, or do not want to make time, for things which is not advantageous to them, who we need to convince. Creating ROI is they tool then.

Reply from Corie Lok

Corie Lok — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:00:36 -0000

We can encourage people, one at a time, to be more open. Here’s an opportunity: one of our bloggers, Richard Grant, a postdoc, has just posted a question about how much detail he should reveal about his experiments on this blog. Let’s help him out!

Reply from Neil Saunders

Neil Saunders — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:48:06 -0000

Does anyone think that there’s any merit in creating some “formal” organisation devoted to promoting open science?

At present, it’s a rather loosely-defined term and its few practioners are spread around the web on blogs and wikis. I wonder if something like the Open Bioinformatics Foundation, which promotes open source bioinformatics software, would be an appropriate model for open science?

Or is an umbrella organisation contrary to the way we do things? Should we just rely on social networks and aggregators to bring us together?

Reply from Jean-Claude Bradley

Jean-Claude Bradley — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:06:36 -0000

Ditto to all comments

Experiment with small projects and don’t overplan. Technology and social behavior change so quickly that it is really not possible to predict how things will play out over time.

Reply from Neil Saunders

Neil Saunders — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:47:59 -0000

Ideas and debate in this comment thread at my blog.

There’s a lot more to it than “should I do open science or not”. The fact that the academic research environment and funding agencies are not moving with the times is a source of real concern and even depression for many young, early career researchers.

Reply from Deepak Singh

Deepak Singh — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:02:30 -0000

Euan is right. Small individual steps tend to be the most effective way for things to happen. Trying to wrench change is always hard and often counterproductive. In the meantime some of us will keep writing about the need to keep science open.

Reply from Euan Adie

Euan Adie — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:35:02 -0000

IMHO: stop worrying so much (not Corie, scientists in general).

Nobody is saying that we all have to put lab notebooks online and blog about all your breakthroughs before publication.

Start slow. Make small contributions to places like OpenWetWare and Precedings (or keep a blog if you’re keen). Build up contacts, collaborators and comments.

After a year take a step back and decide if it’s worth it.