The online world often feels like a foreign land, writes Timo Hannay, Nature.com’s publishing director, at Nascent, Nature Publishing Group’s web technology blog.
Unfamiliar ‘languages’ such as patches in open-source software, links, online comments, votes and Facebook ‘pokes’ are the social currencies of the web. Unfamiliar things force us to reassess our own assumptions and prejudices.
Unfortunately, many scientific publishers have responded to the “foreign land called the Internet” with ignorance and denial, notes Hannay: for example, the PRISM initiative, a campaign criticizing open-access publishing. Scientists also seem reluctant. Hannay quotes Jim Hendler, one of the founders of the Semantic Web: “While scientists have gloried in the disruptive effect that the Web is having on publishers and libraries … we are much more resistant to letting it be a disruptive force in the practice of our disciplines.” Take scientists’ lack of enthusiasm to do things that are of minimal personal effort but of potential shared benefit, such as depositing manuscripts and notes into repositories. Hannay’s message for publishers and scientists alike: “It’s not enough to merely accept change, you have to promote it.”
Nature 455, xiii; 23 October 2008
-
From the blogosphere by Maxine Clarke
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Online world as foreign land -- 23 October 2008
- Date:
- Wednesday, 29 Oct ober 2008 - 19:07 UTC
Last updated: Wednesday, 29 Oct 2008 - 19:07 UTC
-
Comments
-
Somewhere recently I read a piece contrasting the person who just “uses the web” with the person who is an “inhabitant of cyberspace”. The first one may use Google to search for something, and download a PDF of a journal article. The second has profiles on NN and everywhere else, uses FriendFeed, Connotea, Google docs, etc as part of their daily workflow and are embedded in the digital world.
Wish I could remember where I saw it.
I’ve certainly observed this difference: even when putting little “From the Blogosphere” articles through the Nature editorial process (I lost track of how many people asked me to define “poke” in this column.)
I think a great many scientists, possibly the majority, are in your first category, Frank, and a relatively few in your second – most notably bioinformaticians and others who use the web for their actual research (open lab notebook), and “camp followers” such as librarians (you), editors (me) and similar. The article by Timo at the link is fantastic, a great piece full of insight.
Yes, what is a ‘poke’? I’ve often wanted to ask this question but have been afraid do do so for fear of attracting derision from more tech-friendly people than myself.
Well, when asked that same question by what seemed to be about eight separate Nature editors and subs, I replied “that’s the point Timo is making- it’s alien”. I was not allowed to get away with that so I said “it is a way to say hello on Facebook” – but to be honest I don’t know either, you probably have to be a teenager to get it. I have a massive list of pokes, invitations and assorted other “inputs” on Facebook that I ignore because I don’t know what to do with them.
Poke – It’s a Facebook term. If you search for someone’s name (John Smith) you can’t always be sure you’ve got the right John Smith. Unless their profile is completely open to all to view then you can’t check to verify their details. If you poke them, then they get a little message to tell them you’ve done that, and also your profile is then opened up for a few days for them to look at. They can poke you back if they wish, then you can look at their details.
If you get poked you are of course free to ignore it.
Oh, I see! I thought it had something to do with farm animals.
Ah, I get it now. Thanks, Frank!
Maxine – back to the idea of the two categories (web users and total cyberheads). I fear that I am indeed just a souped-up web user. I think you however are a genuine inhabitant of cyberspace – you pop up everywhere online, at all times of day and night (it seems). I am still struggling to find a way to link everything I do and to do everything in an online-friendly way.
I also struggle to find time (always a weak excuse I know) to read and to comment as frequently and as broadly as I’d wish.
Well, Frank, my “day” web use is work and my “night” is “personal time”, eg writing my own blog and reading book-related RSS feeds, which I do late. This suits me fine as for various reasons I don’t get out much (sad but true!), but I would not necessarily recommend it as a good thing for everyone.
One positive aspect about the web is that there are so many ways to customise it for your own particular uses. I also think it can be massively distracting unless you use it in a very focused way (eg I have rules such as never watch a video (takes too long), only use certain social sites, use RSS not random browsing, etc), so I don’t think your excuse is at all weak, I think it probably reflects a good handle on the work-life-web balance.