OpenWetWare:PLoS community page - Revision history

Reshma P. Shetty: /* Community */

2007-10-19T15:53:29Z

Community

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 19 October 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:

	===Community===		===Community===
-	The current publication system is not based on infrastructure ~~and process~~ alone. It only works because the scientific community ties career rewards (promotion, grant support, awards etc.) to dissemination of research results via the current publishing system. Similarly, OpenWetWare's success to date is not a result of the wiki alone but of the communities on OpenWetWare that encourage and value information sharing throughout the research process. We find that users often post information on OpenWetWare not because they wish to publish it for strangers to see but because they want to share it with other lab members. Yet by sharing this information openly, they often receive unintended benefits like additional feedback and new collaborations. Thus, OpenWetWare has helped to foster the growth of these communities by encouraging global publication of local sharing. To date there are only a few communities that value the dissemination of information about the research process itself; however, the success of OpenWetWare suggests that we can grow new communities that celebrate the sharing of this information.	+	The current publication system is not based on infrastructure alone. It only works because the scientific community ties career rewards (promotion, grant support, awards etc.) to dissemination of research results via the current publishing system. Similarly, OpenWetWare's success to date is not a result of the wiki alone but of the communities on OpenWetWare that encourage and value information sharing throughout the research process. We find that users often post information on OpenWetWare not because they wish to publish it for strangers to see but because they want to share it with other lab members. Yet by sharing this information openly, they often receive unintended benefits like additional feedback and new collaborations. Thus, OpenWetWare has helped to foster the growth of these communities by encouraging global publication of local sharing. To date there are only a few communities that value the dissemination of information about the research process itself; however, the success of OpenWetWare suggests that we can grow new communities that celebrate the sharing of this information.

	'''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri\|talk]])''': Something that needs to be added to the above paragraph is talk about why the work here doesn't necessarily have to be peer-reviewed to succeed (i.e., reproducibility and user trust may be more important) & and in relieving that requirement, you get different types of information		'''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri\|talk]])''': Something that needs to be added to the above paragraph is talk about why the work here doesn't necessarily have to be peer-reviewed to succeed (i.e., reproducibility and user trust may be more important) & and in relieving that requirement, you get different types of information

Skosuri: /* Article */

2007-10-18T06:37:50Z

Article

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:37, 18 October 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	=Article=		=Article=
-	In the face of expensive printing and distribution costs, scientists and publishers established the current publication system to exchange the most critical information among researchers; namely research results. The publishers built the infrastructure to print and publicize scientific results important to the scientific community. In conjunction, the scientific community developed a set of norms around using the peer review system to assess the validity, novelty and importance of scientific findings and merit. While success of the current system is reflected in the health of the scientific community today, new technologies allow us to reevaluate the process of sharing scientific information. One flaw of the current peer-review publication system is that much of the information that is required and/or generated in the research process, such as protocols, failed experiments, and informational sources, is not currently communicated in a broad or timely manner. Not sharing such information slows the pace of science, creates barriers of entry to researchers coming from different fields, reduces collaboration, and inhibits the replication of results. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new ecosystem (infrastructure, processes, and community) that fosters the sharing of this tacit knowledge and pre-publication materials within biology and biological engineering. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new venue for sharing information throughout the research process in biology and biological engineering. We are focused both on developing new software tools to facilitate sharing and ~~building~~ research communities that value dissemination of work from project conception to final publication.	+	In the face of expensive printing and distribution costs, scientists and publishers established the current publication system to exchange the most critical information among researchers; namely research results. The publishers built the infrastructure to print and publicize scientific results important to the scientific community. In conjunction, the scientific community developed a set of norms around using the peer review system to assess the validity, novelty and importance of scientific findings and merit. While success of the current system is reflected in the health of the scientific community today, new technologies allow us to reevaluate the process of sharing scientific information. One flaw of the current peer-review publication system is that much of the information that is required and/or generated in the research process, such as protocols, failed experiments, and informational sources, is not currently communicated in a broad or timely manner. Not sharing such information slows the pace of science, creates barriers of entry to researchers coming from different fields, reduces collaboration, and inhibits the replication of results. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new venue for sharing information throughout the research process in biology and biological engineering. We are focused both on developing new software tools to facilitate sharing and fostering research communities that value dissemination of work from project conception to final publication.

	===Infrastructure===		===Infrastructure===
-	Based on the same wiki software used by Wikipedia, OpenWetWare (http://openwetware.org) is our first attempt at providing the necessary infrastructure to capture and share biological knowledge as it is generated. The wiki allows for instantaneous distribution of information with few constraints on format or structure. Simple, quick and easy-to-use mechanisms for sharing information are essential if we expect scientists to share the many details underlying the research process. The flexible wiki format has proven effective at accommodating the breadth of information communicated by scientists (see ~~box~~ 1).	+	Based on the same wiki software used by Wikipedia, OpenWetWare (http://openwetware.org) is our first attempt at providing the necessary infrastructure to capture and share biological knowledge as it is generated. The wiki allows for instantaneous distribution of information with few constraints on format or structure. Simple, quick and easy-to-use mechanisms for sharing information are essential if we expect scientists to share the many details underlying the research process. The flexible wiki format has proven effective at accommodating the breadth of information communicated by scientists (see Box 1).

	===Community===		===Community===

Skosuri: /* Article */

2007-10-18T06:33:27Z

Article

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 18 October 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	=Article=		=Article=
-	In the face of expensive printing and distribution costs, scientists and publishers established the current publication system to ~~optimize the~~ exchange of the most critical information among researchers: results. The publishers built the infrastructure to print and publicize scientific results important to the scientific community. In conjunction, the scientific community developed a set of norms around using the peer review system to assess the validity, novelty and importance of scientific findings and merit. While success of the current system is reflected in the health of the scientific community today, new technologies allow us to reevaluate the process of sharing scientific information. One flaw of the current peer-review publication system is that much of the information that is required and/or generated in the research process, such as protocols, failed experiments, and informational sources, is not currently communicated in a broad or timely manner. Not sharing such information slows the pace of science, creates barriers of entry to researchers coming from different fields, reduces collaboration, and inhibits the replication of results. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new ecosystem (infrastructure, processes, and community) that fosters the sharing of this tacit knowledge and pre-publication materials within biology and biological engineering. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new venue for sharing information throughout the research process in biology and biological engineering. We are focused both on developing new software tools to facilitate sharing and building research communities that value dissemination of work from project conception to final publication.	+	In the face of expensive printing and distribution costs, scientists and publishers established the current publication system to exchange the most critical information among researchers; namely research results. The publishers built the infrastructure to print and publicize scientific results important to the scientific community. In conjunction, the scientific community developed a set of norms around using the peer review system to assess the validity, novelty and importance of scientific findings and merit. While success of the current system is reflected in the health of the scientific community today, new technologies allow us to reevaluate the process of sharing scientific information. One flaw of the current peer-review publication system is that much of the information that is required and/or generated in the research process, such as protocols, failed experiments, and informational sources, is not currently communicated in a broad or timely manner. Not sharing such information slows the pace of science, creates barriers of entry to researchers coming from different fields, reduces collaboration, and inhibits the replication of results. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new ecosystem (infrastructure, processes, and community) that fosters the sharing of this tacit knowledge and pre-publication materials within biology and biological engineering. OpenWetWare is an experiment to establish a new venue for sharing information throughout the research process in biology and biological engineering. We are focused both on developing new software tools to facilitate sharing and building research communities that value dissemination of work from project conception to final publication.

	===Infrastructure===		===Infrastructure===

Skosuri: /* Community */

2007-10-18T06:29:19Z

Community

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:29, 18 October 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The current publication system is not based on infrastructure and process alone. It only works because the scientific community ties career rewards (promotion, grant support, awards etc.) to dissemination of research results via the current publishing system. Similarly, OpenWetWare's success to date is not a result of the wiki alone but of the communities on OpenWetWare that encourage and value information sharing throughout the research process. We find that users often post information on OpenWetWare not because they wish to publish it for strangers to see but because they want to share it with other lab members. Yet by sharing this information openly, they often receive unintended benefits like additional feedback and new collaborations. Thus, OpenWetWare has helped to foster the growth of these communities by encouraging global publication of local sharing. To date there are only a few communities that value the dissemination of information about the research process itself; however, the success of OpenWetWare suggests that we can grow new communities that celebrate the sharing of this information.		The current publication system is not based on infrastructure and process alone. It only works because the scientific community ties career rewards (promotion, grant support, awards etc.) to dissemination of research results via the current publishing system. Similarly, OpenWetWare's success to date is not a result of the wiki alone but of the communities on OpenWetWare that encourage and value information sharing throughout the research process. We find that users often post information on OpenWetWare not because they wish to publish it for strangers to see but because they want to share it with other lab members. Yet by sharing this information openly, they often receive unintended benefits like additional feedback and new collaborations. Thus, OpenWetWare has helped to foster the growth of these communities by encouraging global publication of local sharing. To date there are only a few communities that value the dissemination of information about the research process itself; however, the success of OpenWetWare suggests that we can grow new communities that celebrate the sharing of this information.

-	'''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri\|talk]])''': Something that needs to be added to the above paragraph is talk about why the work here doesn't necessarily have to be peer-reviewed to succeed & and in relieving that requirement, you get ~~more~~ information	+	'''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri\|talk]])''': Something that needs to be added to the above paragraph is talk about why the work here doesn't necessarily have to be peer-reviewed to succeed (i.e., reproducibility and user trust may be more important) & and in relieving that requirement, you get different types of information

	Today 3200 researchers representing over 100 laboratories around the world contribute to OpenWetWare in a variety of ways (see box 1). Two salient features of contributions to OpenWetWare point to its uniqueness. First, the breadth of content on OpenWetWare highlights information sources that are not well represented anywhere else. For example, resources like instructions on operating common laboratory equipment [http://openwetware.org/wiki/Endy:Victor3_plate_reader], lists of ''Escherichia coli'' strain genotype information [http://openwetware.org/wiki/E._coli_genotypes] and a how-to on searching the literature [http://openwetware.org/wiki/Searching_the_literature] are rarely disseminated widely online. Second, the depth of content on OpenWetWare is also unlike that found elsewhere. For example, there are several examples of detailed laboratory notebooks. In particular, several teams of undergraduates participating in the international Genetically Engineered Machines competition (http://igem.org) used OpenWetWare daily to document and coordinate their research project. By embedding digital information capture in the research process itself, much information that would normally be lost like alternative hypotheses, failed experiments, protocol details and raw data was preserved in way that is amenable to distribution and reuse.		Today 3200 researchers representing over 100 laboratories around the world contribute to OpenWetWare in a variety of ways (see box 1). Two salient features of contributions to OpenWetWare point to its uniqueness. First, the breadth of content on OpenWetWare highlights information sources that are not well represented anywhere else. For example, resources like instructions on operating common laboratory equipment [http://openwetware.org/wiki/Endy:Victor3_plate_reader], lists of ''Escherichia coli'' strain genotype information [http://openwetware.org/wiki/E._coli_genotypes] and a how-to on searching the literature [http://openwetware.org/wiki/Searching_the_literature] are rarely disseminated widely online. Second, the depth of content on OpenWetWare is also unlike that found elsewhere. For example, there are several examples of detailed laboratory notebooks. In particular, several teams of undergraduates participating in the international Genetically Engineered Machines competition (http://igem.org) used OpenWetWare daily to document and coordinate their research project. By embedding digital information capture in the research process itself, much information that would normally be lost like alternative hypotheses, failed experiments, protocol details and raw data was preserved in way that is amenable to distribution and reuse.

Skosuri at 06:28, 18 October 2007

2007-10-18T06:28:15Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 18 October 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	See [http://openwetware.org/index.php?title=OpenWetWare:PLoS_community_page&oldid=155377 Reshma and Austin's previous version]		See [http://openwetware.org/index.php?title=OpenWetWare:PLoS_community_page&oldid=155377 Reshma and Austin's previous version]

-	Either the use of the word 'we' should be made clear, or we should use the words 'OWW users'	+	Either the use of the word 'we' should be made clear, or we should use the words 'OWW users' --SK

	=Article=		=Article=

Skosuri at 06:27, 18 October 2007

2007-10-18T06:27:53Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 18 October 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	See [http://openwetware.org/index.php?title=OpenWetWare:PLoS_community_page&oldid=155377 Reshma and Austin's previous version]		See [http://openwetware.org/index.php?title=OpenWetWare:PLoS_community_page&oldid=155377 Reshma and Austin's previous version]
		+
		+	Either the use of the word 'we' should be made clear, or we should use the words 'OWW users'

	=Article=		=Article=

Skosuri: /* Box 1 */

2007-10-18T06:26:19Z

Box 1

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:26, 18 October 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:

	=Box 1=		=Box 1=
-	<font color=green>Needs to be shortened!</font>. I dropped direct misgivings of the current system. I also think information sources should be added to this list, and I'm not exactly sure if courses fits here as a whole section (as we don't talk about it anywhere else).	+	<font color=green>Needs to be shortened!</font>. I dropped direct misgivings of the current system. I also think information sources should be added to this list, and I'm not exactly sure if courses fits here as a whole section (as we don't talk about it anywhere else). '''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri\|talk]])'''

	===Lab webpages===		===Lab webpages===

Skosuri: /* Box 1 */

2007-10-18T06:25:59Z

Box 1

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:25, 18 October 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:

	=Box 1=		=Box 1=
-	<font color=green>Needs to be shortened!</font>. I dropped direct misgivings of the current system. I also think information sources should be added to this list, and ~~that~~ courses ~~should be added to other materials~~.	+	<font color=green>Needs to be shortened!</font>. I dropped direct misgivings of the current system. I also think information sources should be added to this list, and I'm not exactly sure if courses fits here as a whole section (as we don't talk about it anywhere else).

	===Lab webpages===		===Lab webpages===

Skosuri: /* Box 1 */

2007-10-18T06:24:54Z

Box 1

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, 18 October 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:

	=Box 1=		=Box 1=
-	<font color=green>Needs to be shortened!</font>	+	<font color=green>Needs to be shortened!</font>. I dropped direct misgivings of the current system. I also think information sources should be added to this list, and that courses should be added to other materials.
		+
	===Lab webpages===		===Lab webpages===

Skosuri: /* Collaboration */

2007-10-18T06:22:48Z

Collaboration

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:22, 18 October 2007
Line 47:		Line 47:
	===Collaboration===		===Collaboration===

-	The wiki has proven to be an excellent platform for collaboration, whether it be between instructors and students, students and advisors, researchers in the same lab, or groups physically far apart. ~~Articles, such as this one, can be written collaboratively on the wiki [http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:PLoS_community_page]. Brainstorming ideas~~ and ~~discussions work especially well. For~~ example, the ~~top hit on google for "science 2.0" is a discussion page~~ on OpenWetWare ~~[http://openwetware~~.~~org/wiki/Science_2.0/Brainstorming].~~	+	The wiki has proven to be an excellent platform for collaboration, whether it be between instructors and students, students and advisors, researchers in the same lab, or groups physically far apart. One early and best described example are the activities of the Synthetic Biology community on OpenWetWare. Describe.
-	*'''[[User:Jason R. Kelly\|Jason R. Kelly]]:''' I don't like using Science 2.0 as an example, since I think we made that term up ;) also, the top hit on google means a lot more to us than it does the avg biology reader, i think. cold just include a ref to one of the synth bio discussion pages as a ref for the previous sentence, and lose the last sentence altogether.	+

	===Initiatives in development===		===Initiatives in development===