OpenWetWare:Headquarters/Research Pathway Brainstorming061308: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: • Tools for choosing what to work on and choosing when to stop 11 Publication: Research is not conducted in vacuum need to couple conclusions and publications with the next set of qu...) |
|||
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Tools to facilitate establishment of collaborations== | |||
''This topic seemed like an overarching theme, so I pulled all related ideas out of the overall list. Numbers in brackets indicate which step of the research cycle they came from.'' - '''[[User:Barry Canton|BC]] 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)''' | |||
*Ideas Marketplace (1) | |||
**[http://www.kluster.com/buy/features Kluster might help here] | |||
*An academic “innocentive” for research: Is there a way to orally ingest perfume?” “I’d like a biobrick vector that does X” Research marketplace; could be a mailing list; Craigslist for research (4) | |||
*Prizes, rewards, and competitions that will motivate people to work together (1 and others) | |||
*Microcredit for specialists who only want to work on part of the problem -> Attaching your credentials to a chunk of data (4) | |||
**[http://npg.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n8/full/ng0807-931.html microcredit editorial] | |||
*System for outsourcing experimentation (4) | |||
==General== | |||
*Tools/protocols for choosing what to work on and choosing when to stop | |||
*Building communities and networks at all steps on the cycle, | |||
*Mechanisms for specialization in communities | |||
==Ideas (1)== | |||
==Background Research (3)== | |||
*Opportunities for better Referencing | |||
**crowdsourcing for background research. What are the standard set of references/citations for X. DOIs for sets of references; abstraction for references | |||
*What’s the right way to present your data? | |||
**best practices for reporting data | |||
**open data conventions; examples for presenting data; (e.g. error bars and statistics) | |||
*Meta-level tools for finding publications | |||
*A way of conducting semantic research of articles and a way of extracting info from them | |||
==Background Research -> Experimentation (3.5)== | |||
*Open funding and microfunding. Outsourcing in a lab. Lab needs resources, can plug into a microfunding model or network | |||
*A way to ask research questions and find the right people who can answer | |||
==Experimentation (4)== | |||
*Standardized interfaces for controlling instrumentation via OWW | |||
*A reward system for amateur researchers | |||
*Consensus protocols: Standardized versions of protocols that are easy to find and free; | |||
*Different kinds of protocols and methods that provide information and how-tos for all phases and aspects of research; | |||
*Better ways of getting your activities out in the world; subscribe to your colleagues’ work; | |||
*Community building in the experimental cycle; example is a feed of “everyone else who’s using this protocol.” | |||
==Analysis (6)== | |||
*An easy way to integrate your data into other people’s data sets | |||
==Publishing Cycle (8-11)== | |||
*A way to apply peer review earlier than the publication phase; rolling, cycle-wide peer review; PR at the idea stage | |||
(Dotted line to …) | |||
*Mechanism for capturing the value of negative results; collecting all the stuff that doesn’t make it into the paper like peer review; deleted scenes, the director’s cut; alternate endings | |||
*Implement CVS for publication: from submission to publication; | |||
*Design a publication process where the author has control; a centralized document with continuous version control. (As you hit a point in the review process should be less back and forth between you and the publisher, fewer publication delays.) | |||
*Build tools for writing: Drew envisions “A sea of unreviewed manuscripts” where the editor comes to you. A manuscript marketplace. Allows for … | |||
**feedback on rougher manuscripts | |||
**less stigma for having an error | |||
**Metric of error correction for each publication – finer-grained metrics | |||
==Publication -> Ideas (11->1)== | |||
Research is not conducted in vacuum; there’s a need to couple conclusions and publications with the next set of questions. | |||
*Need a mechanism for going from a publication back into to the idea pool | |||
*Need a mechanism for others (possibly nonresearchers) to pose questions, problems, ideas for research | |||
==Actionable tasks from the above== | |||
*[[OpenWetWare:ProjectDevelopment]] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:01, 29 July 2008
Tools to facilitate establishment of collaborations
This topic seemed like an overarching theme, so I pulled all related ideas out of the overall list. Numbers in brackets indicate which step of the research cycle they came from. - BC 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ideas Marketplace (1)
- An academic “innocentive” for research: Is there a way to orally ingest perfume?” “I’d like a biobrick vector that does X” Research marketplace; could be a mailing list; Craigslist for research (4)
- Prizes, rewards, and competitions that will motivate people to work together (1 and others)
- Microcredit for specialists who only want to work on part of the problem -> Attaching your credentials to a chunk of data (4)
- System for outsourcing experimentation (4)
General
- Tools/protocols for choosing what to work on and choosing when to stop
- Building communities and networks at all steps on the cycle,
- Mechanisms for specialization in communities
Ideas (1)
Background Research (3)
- Opportunities for better Referencing
- crowdsourcing for background research. What are the standard set of references/citations for X. DOIs for sets of references; abstraction for references
- What’s the right way to present your data?
- best practices for reporting data
- open data conventions; examples for presenting data; (e.g. error bars and statistics)
- Meta-level tools for finding publications
- A way of conducting semantic research of articles and a way of extracting info from them
Background Research -> Experimentation (3.5)
- Open funding and microfunding. Outsourcing in a lab. Lab needs resources, can plug into a microfunding model or network
- A way to ask research questions and find the right people who can answer
Experimentation (4)
- Standardized interfaces for controlling instrumentation via OWW
- A reward system for amateur researchers
- Consensus protocols: Standardized versions of protocols that are easy to find and free;
- Different kinds of protocols and methods that provide information and how-tos for all phases and aspects of research;
- Better ways of getting your activities out in the world; subscribe to your colleagues’ work;
- Community building in the experimental cycle; example is a feed of “everyone else who’s using this protocol.”
Analysis (6)
- An easy way to integrate your data into other people’s data sets
Publishing Cycle (8-11)
- A way to apply peer review earlier than the publication phase; rolling, cycle-wide peer review; PR at the idea stage
(Dotted line to …)
- Mechanism for capturing the value of negative results; collecting all the stuff that doesn’t make it into the paper like peer review; deleted scenes, the director’s cut; alternate endings
- Implement CVS for publication: from submission to publication;
- Design a publication process where the author has control; a centralized document with continuous version control. (As you hit a point in the review process should be less back and forth between you and the publisher, fewer publication delays.)
- Build tools for writing: Drew envisions “A sea of unreviewed manuscripts” where the editor comes to you. A manuscript marketplace. Allows for …
- feedback on rougher manuscripts
- less stigma for having an error
- Metric of error correction for each publication – finer-grained metrics
Publication -> Ideas (11->1)
Research is not conducted in vacuum; there’s a need to couple conclusions and publications with the next set of questions.
- Need a mechanism for going from a publication back into to the idea pool
- Need a mechanism for others (possibly nonresearchers) to pose questions, problems, ideas for research