Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working? forum: topic
This is a public forum
Social networks for scientists
Pedro Matos
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 13:03 UTC
Social networks for scientists are still quite recent and in the process growing. However the dispersion of users among these several networks and the poor willingness of scientists to embrace these services decrease the social power and usefulness of each network.
Here, I listed many of them:
- Nature Network
- ResearchGATE
- SciLink
- Epernicus
- LabRoots
- BiomedExperts
- Academia.edu
- Laboratree
- myExperiment
- Sci-mate
- LinkedIn (?)
And the more reference manager oriented ones:
So, what do you think about this topic? Do you use any of these or know other networks? Do you find it useful? What do you think a social network for scientists should provide to be successful?
Updated 26 May 2009 16:54 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I think that if these online networks and tools provide some usefulness for scientists, they’ll be used. I have only tried a couple of the networks in the first part of your list, as well as the various science “rooms” at Friend Feed – and a lot of the same names seem to crop up in them all. I guess that more scientists will use them as people find they can do things better using them, and word will spread. I don’t know about the online reference management tools – people at Nature Network write about using these (particularly Martin Fenner, who has written some very useful comparisons at his blog), but again, I guess people will use them if they are more useful to them than whatever non-online system of reference management they use as an alternative.
I think most users of most applications (online or not) are like this – if the application provides a better way of doing something they did before, or a new way to achieve something, it will be popular (eg Twitter – I don’t like it personally but it is certainly being put to great use in many scientific and other ways, mainly to do with communicating news quickly).
-
I agree with Dr Clarke that these tools will survive if they help researchers do things better. Perhaps Scientists are too focused or specialised to gain a lot from loosely organized discussions. The only guy who seems to gain any benefit is the guy who is running the group, and often this is mostly an ego thing rather than research output. I agree entirely that it weakens the concept to have so many separate communities (and the same goes for straight forum sites). This is basically a result of free open source software that can be marketed for a year or so and sold to an ignorant investor.
A very new Web 2.0 project that I’m involved with, called Sci-Mate, is customising applications to directly address the needs of scientists. Instead of another social network, we’re starting with a pre-publication environment and an exchange platform (where tools and services can be made the available for collaborative projects). Networking software will come later, and it will focus on coordinating research focused collaborations.
-
Dear Chris, the second paragraph of your comment seems to contradict the first paragraph! I had noticed your comments about SciMate at many places on FriendFeed – I might take a look when I have some time.
-
Spooky coincidence. I just wrote a post which was inspired in part by SciMate. That it didn’t seem to be a product ready for prime time led to the First Law.
-
To some extent, I’ve found that those most interested in the reference management tools are my students — they do not have a 20 year deep pile of xeroxed articles from the bad old days…and are grateful for anything that helps them deal with citation styles (a feature of most of these programs now). However, they don’t seem to use the networking functions of the ref managers, and I believe this is a matter of inexperience. They are so busy learning how to find stuff that they don’t even recognize the shortcuts networking can provide. However, they do teach themselves the collaborative tools (google docs, etherpad) fairly readily and use them for projects. It would be interesting to find out if working with undergrads/grad students has any impact on whether a particular scientist/researcher uses any of these tools.
I’ve used CiteUlike, 2collab, and zotero. 2collab is too slow for me. CiteUlike is pretty good, though I prefer the layout and usability of zotero better. Ultimately, though, I find myself using Delicious mostly because I’m used to it, works faster/easier most of the time, and makes sharing simpler. I can set up lists for particular/projects, classes, etc., and send the link out.
-
Hi Maxine, I have mixed feelings about the issue of ‘social’ networking. We are interested in developing something we’d call ‘research’ networking that focus on assisting collaborative research and development projects. Ultimately, however, it will be up to what the member community wants, because the site is really a collaborative project itself.
Hi Richard, I’d certainly agree that a site with content is more attractive than an empty site. However, if we’d run a closed service for longer than the few months it took us to alpha-test the site (so as to gather a critical mass of content to get the site “working” as you put it), it would have given an unfair advantage to those users in the closed environment once the service was launched. A key principle of the site is that it is objective. We want to give all researchers an equal opportunity to promote the wider application and development of their ideas, services and technology. Perhaps this means that we will attract the attention of nay-sayers until we hit a critical mass, but the idea of ‘a fair go for all researchers’ is more important in the long run. You might also consider that the site has only been open for a month before using us to inspire a “law” that seems to contradict the meaning and experience of Web 2.0. I’m a researcher, so I’d ask to see the data behind your statement, and point to numerous examples where sites have been launched prior to reaching critical mass, including eBay and Wikipedia. In fact, after attending Web 2.0 conferences and reading the literature, launching a beta-version and struggling towards critical mass seems to be the norm. I understand completely you are being provocative, but hope you might use your considerable skills in communication to help people understand the potential of these tools to help researchers and broader society tackle major health, environmental and social challenges. How about a challenge- you prepare an article within the Wiki-Mate, as article editor, on a topic of your choice. It’d give you a good look at the software, and with your skills as a communicator and the power of the software, maybe Maxine would help us get it published in Nature. It’s amazing what people can do when they cooperate.
-
an unfair advantage to those users in the closed environment once the service was launched
That’s simply nonsense. It’s like saying, oh I don’t know
- people who get to -betaalpha test a train timetable have an unfair advantage.And what you’re challenging me to do is build the tool you should have already built. Sorry. Ain’t gonna happen.
-
Sorry about the strikethrough. MT 4 will fix this.
-
Richard, that’s a strange analogy to use, but I guess if some people have access to a train time table a long time before others, then they might benefit by knowing whether to purchase a car or not. But really the analogy is wrong, and it highlights a common misunderstanding of Web 2.0. You are actually talking about Web 1.0, which is very much like a train, a service provided entirely by single corporation or government agency. People just get on and consume what is available- in the case of the train, a journey; and in the case of the internet, mostly information. What you’re asking for when you want me to provide you with information, and refusing to contribute yourself, is Web version 1.0, like a standard Nature journal. There is nothing wrong with that, but Web 2.0 is not merely about supplying information, but about providing communication tools, like Nature Networks.
The value of Web 2.0 software is its ability to allow people with highly specialised knowledge, materials or services to bring these resources into a context where they can be productively utilised. This is what Sci-Mate aims to offer researchers- several easy ways to get their valuable ideas into novel applications and development projects.
The train analogy would work if passengers could somehow own the seat they first sit in, or modify the train in someway that suits their needs. That is the critical feature of Web 2.0- that users are active and influence the environment. People with access to the time table before others would definitely have an advantage by claiming the best seats or setting up the carriage exactly how they like it. Latecomers would get relegated to the left over seats, or would have to challenge what has already been established.
The first people to place “general knowledge” content into Sci-Mate will be able to promote their achievements in a limited number of very general articles about “Immunology”, “Molecular Biology”, or one of the other major scientific disciplines. These articles will form the key hubs of content through which others are most likely to enter the site. This not only gives them recognition, which help increase their personal citation rate (by drawing attention to their own published material), but such articles themselves are the most likely to be published as high impact factor reviews (following on-site peer-review).
Instantly reporting “research results” in the pre-publishing environment (Wiki-Mate) is intended to help co-authors work more efficiently together. Copyright protections and date-stamps built into the software make it unattractive for others to publish the same results as if they are original. Competitive labs, are therefore, better served by performing experiments that support, challenge or extend the initial finding and publishing the results collectively in a higher impact journal. Such a process of ‘friendly competition’ would reduce the massive amount of wasteful repetition in research, in particular by providing a mechanism to report and collaboratively address negative results that can hold back entire fields (eg, gene therapy using plasmids- from my own experience).
The first scientists to learn how to use these tools effectively in their research will benefit dramatically. The no-nonsense opportunity to ‘get aboard’ remains open to all equally.
-
On friend feed there are a lot of people, usually recent ex-scientists or scientists with a sideline, posting and promoting their web 2.0 tools – Scimate is but one of many. I’ll wait for a bit more proof of pudding I think.
Results
-
