What would science look like if it were invented today?

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
What would science look like if it were invented today? by Mind Map: What would science look like if it were invented today?

1. identify, then close a gap

1.1. identify a gap

2. close the gap

2.1. Planning: an idea on how to bridge or close the gap

2.2. Realization: the means to put the idea into practice

2.3. Verification: independent assessment of the realization

2.4. Communication (during the 3 above stages)

2.4.1. Grant proposals after an idea had been prepared for realization

2.4.2. Conference and journal papers once the realization had progressed

2.4.3. Further papers (by independent investigators) once replication had been attempted

3. Inspiration: Google Wave asking "What would email look like if it were invented today?"

4. Part 1: Reinventing knowledge creation (research)

4.1. With the new technology

4.1.1. (almost) any kind of information can be shared instantly

4.1.2. paper => wiki, blog, wave

4.1.2.1. shared research environment

4.1.2.2. reusable components

4.1.2.2.1. syndicated, aggregated in various forms and embedded in other digital environments

4.1.3. "Open Science"

4.1.3.1. individual contributions can be

4.1.3.1.1.  automatically assigned a unique identifier

4.1.3.1.2. tagged

4.1.3.1.3. quality assessed / rated

4.1.3.2. need environment for contributing ideas

4.1.3.2.1. even if they are undeveloped and/or likely to be wrong

4.1.3.3. use hyperlinks and embeds for references

4.1.3.3.1. Science Commons

4.1.3.4. 3 stages

4.1.3.4.1. Conception of ideas

4.1.3.4.2. Results

4.1.3.4.3. Verifications

5. Part 2: Reinventing knowledge structuring

5.1. Examples of ways for structuring knowledge

5.1.1. coordinated cellular activity in your brain

5.1.2. spatial arrangements of sheets of paper

5.1.3. numeric arrangements of digital documents

5.2. practical aspects of organizing knowledge in online environments

5.2.1. incremental and continuous

5.2.2. whole article openly accessible right form the start.

5.2.3. Documents can be edited simultaneously by multiple authors

5.2.4. Identify author's contributions and trace history of document versions

5.3. collaboratively creating, editing and maintaining a central set of interlinked knowledge elements

5.3.1. => reduce redundancies

5.3.2. could make article harder to understand for an outsider

5.3.2.1. => less cross-fertilization with other research fields

5.4. scholarly pages on the web are not optimally connected

5.4.1. groupware, wikis

5.4.1.1. problems in Wikipedia

5.4.1.1.1. vandalism

5.4.1.1.2. notability

5.4.1.1.3. No Original Research

5.4.1.2. more scholarly wikis are available

5.4.1.2.1. OpenWetWare

5.4.1.2.2. Scholarpedia

5.4.1.2.3. Citizendium

5.4.1.3. analysis of desirable features of scholarly wikis

5.4.2. groupware, non-wiki

5.5. relative merits of paper-based vs online-based scholarly communication

5.5.1. Paper-based

5.5.2. Online-based

5.5.2.1. Wikis

5.5.2.2. Mindmaps

5.6. "micropublishing" (ff Michael Nielsen)

5.6.1. insert new information at any time

5.6.1.1. e.g. make blog post updates via a wiki page (a proof of principle e.g. for scholarly reviews on a topic)

5.6.2. ?

5.7. simultaneous writing

5.7.1. needs a good version management (if not available, time span agreements useful)

5.7.1.1. may be easier if authors work in different time zones

5.7.2. authors must be aware of what may cause any trouble, e.g. differences in

5.7.2.1. levels of expertise

5.7.2.2. cultural background

5.7.2.2.1. inappropriate levels of politeness

5.7.2.3. technical skill levels

5.7.2.4. technical and financial access to shared tools

5.7.3. ?

5.8. meta-level(s) and writing level(s)

5.8.1. relation of

5.8.2. how visible is this relation?

5.8.3. how are the levels of this organized?

5.8.4. ?

5.9. contextualisation (consider language / language independence / file format)

5.9.1. interlinking (vice versa)

5.9.2. via hyperlinking

5.9.3. ontological framing

5.9.4. redundancy

5.9.4.1. kinds of : function : purpose?

5.9.4.2. intended audience?

5.9.5. ?

5.10. Related posts not cited in article yet

6. Part 3: Reinventing science funding

6.1. Public funding environments

6.1.1. Role of players

6.1.1.1. Scientists

6.1.1.1.1. Proposers

6.1.1.1.2. Commenters/ Reviewers

6.1.1.1.3. Collaborators

6.1.1.1.4. Observers

6.1.1.2. Science funders

6.1.1.2.1. Sole funder

6.1.1.2.2. Joint funder

6.1.1.2.3. ?

6.1.1.3. Science journalists

6.1.1.3.1. active scientists who are doing science communication (on the sidelines, or more)

6.1.1.3.2. journalists

6.1.1.3.3. blogger-journalists

6.1.1.3.4. ?

6.1.1.4. The public

6.1.1.4.1. with web access and web literacy

6.1.1.4.2. other

6.1.1.4.3. ?

6.1.1.5. 'Publishers'

6.1.1.5.1. not-for-profit

6.1.1.5.2. for-profit

6.1.1.5.3. author charges ('page charges')

6.1.1.5.4. no author charges (author does not pay anything to the publisher)

6.1.1.5.5. ?

6.1.1.6. those who organize and administer the switch from funder prompt to applicant prompt

6.1.1.6.1. cf. www.arxiv.org dynamics in HEP (journal editors search in arxiv.org and make offers to author teams) as compared to the wide-spread traditional practise that authors 'submit' to journals and ask for acceptance...

6.1.2. types of funding

6.1.2.1. funder prompts applicant activity (the model so far)

6.1.2.1.1. Funders issue a call for proposals

6.1.2.2. Baseline grants: No direct interaction between funder and fundee necessary, support is institutionalized for a defined duration once eligibility criteria are met

6.1.2.2.1. Eligibility criteria

6.1.2.2.2. Duration

6.1.2.2.3. References

6.1.2.3. applicant prompts funder activity (funders to compete for the best proposals)

6.1.2.3.1. Call to fund infrastructure

6.1.2.3.2. Call to fund acquisition of data

6.1.2.3.3. Call to fund 'making publically available on the web' ('publish' may have become an old-fashioned concept?)

6.1.3. Assessment

6.1.3.1. Assessment of a team effort

6.1.3.1.1. Public ranking and discussion of proposals at all stages

6.1.3.1.2. ?

6.1.3.2. Assessment of individual contributions

6.1.3.2.1. Attribution

6.1.3.2.2. ?

6.1.4. Communication

6.1.4.1. Integration with public knowledge environments

6.1.4.2. Integration with public research environments

6.1.4.3. Integration with science policy

6.1.4.4. Integration with education

6.2. non-public funding environments (see also Part V)

6.3. Sketched out in words

7. Part 4: 'Open Science' revisited: Which kind of 'openness' and for whom?

7.1. Education/ culture: Knowledge structuring as personal traits/ group habits

7.2. 'open' accessibility

7.2.1. open to whom? (read/ write/ delete/ revert/ admin... ?)

7.2.1.1. who is sought for?

7.2.1.1.1. where is the project announced?

7.2.1.1.2. by whom is the project announced?

7.2.1.1.3. in which language(s)?

7.2.1.1.4. initial special invitations?

7.2.1.1.5. ?

7.2.1.2. who is welcome?

7.2.1.2.1. if they come on their own accord

7.2.1.2.2. if they are recommended

7.2.1.3. any other aspects of the attention economy relevant here?

7.2.1.4. whose privileges are inscribed into the project's setup?

7.2.2. barriers?

7.2.2.1. barriers too high

7.2.2.1.1. (technological) knowledge barriers?

7.2.2.1.2. language barriers?

7.2.2.1.3. technical barriers?

7.2.2.1.4. financial barriers?

7.2.2.1.5. cultural and social barriers?

7.2.2.1.6. legal barriers?

7.2.2.1.7. yet other barriers?

7.2.2.2. about fine

7.2.2.2.1. amount of people participating

7.2.2.2.2. kinds of interests involved

7.2.2.2.3. focus of topic agreed on

7.2.2.2.4. aim of topic agreed on

7.2.2.2.5. branching out here and there is welcome

7.2.2.2.6. time / space of 'publication' agreed on

7.2.2.2.7. ?

7.2.2.3. barriers too low

7.2.2.3.1. too many bytes added

7.2.2.3.2. ideas start wandering without due attribution (provide a tool and some technical help on the HOW TO)

7.2.2.3.3. vandalism

7.2.2.3.4. ?

7.2.2.4. hurdles unknown/ invisible as yet

7.2.2.4.1. habits/ ways of doing things?

7.2.2.4.2. ?

7.2.2.5. ?

7.2.3. ?

7.3. open co-authorship

7.3.1. "who has overcome all the barriers and respects the (implicit) rules of the game is welcome"

7.3.2. (see also above 'open' accessibility)

7.3.3. ?

7.4. any other aspects?

7.4.1. [have a go]

7.4.2. ?

8. Part 5: Commodification of academic research

8.1. some definitions

8.1.1. Mertonian ideals

8.1.1.1. what do these mean today?

8.1.1.2. ?

8.1.2. commodification vs commercialisation

8.1.3. ?

8.2. ?

8.3. research process

8.3.1. infrastructure issues

8.3.2. input phase

8.3.3. process phase

8.3.4. output phase