Comments on: Open-source science http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/ Science served wet and salty Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:19:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Miriam Goldstein http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-690 Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:48:03 +0000 http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-690 I didn’t know about Science Commons (clearly, my attention needs expanding). Their Scholar’s Copyright Project seems especially pertinent. Thanks, Jason!

]]> By: JasonR http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-688 Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:35:54 +0000 http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-688 What about the Science Commons? How does that factor into this? I never see that get much mention. Maybe I am not paying enough attention.

]]> By: Miriam Goldstein http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-684 Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:42:54 +0000 http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-684 Sorry if I wasn’t clear – my understanding is that it’s raw data, not papers. (PLoS is papers). The Google system has two advantages : high barrier to entry & online review. The barrier to entry is that you essentially have to send your data in by mail – Google mails you some hard drives & you mail them back. For review, the Google system will have a comment/annotate function, so people looking through the data can decide its quality.

Free raw data has a precedent – an online collection of gene sequences called GenBank. Though I’ve never used it, I’ve been told that while there is lots of crap, the useful parts make it through. Much like the internet itself. :>)

]]> By: Sam http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-683 Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:35:36 +0000 http://theoystersgarter.com/2008/01/23/open-source-science/#comment-683 This does sound awesome! But from a librarian perspective: are we talking just about raw data, or actual papers? And if we’re talking papers (or either way, really), what’s to stop it being filled with useless crap, rather than useful data? Journals are ungodly expensive, but part of what you’re paying for is the knowledge that a bunch of hard-asses who know their stuff looked over the data and papers and said, “Yes, this is solid and a worthy contribution to the Store of Scientific Knowledge.” If every scientist who uses the Google data has to effectively peer-review all the data herself first, it may be more trouble than it’s worth.

]]>