Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Log In

What would science look like if it were invented today? by Mind Map: What would science look like if it were
invented today?
0.0 stars - 0 reviews range from 0 to 5

What would science look like if it were invented today?

identify, then close a gap

identify a gap

close the gap

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

Realization: the means to put the idea into practice

Verification: independent assessment of the realization

Communication (during the 3 above stages)

Grant proposals after an idea had been prepared for realization

Conference and journal papers once the realization had progressed

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

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

Part 1: Reinventing knowledge creation (research)

With the new technology

(almost) any kind of information can be shared instantly

paper => wiki, blog, wave, shared research environment, reusable components, syndicated, aggregated in various forms and embedded in other digital environments

"Open Science", individual contributions can be,  automatically assigned a unique identifier, tagged, quality assessed / rated, need incentives for scientists to engage in collaborative research assessment, need environment for contributing ideas, even if they are undeveloped and/or likely to be wrong, use hyperlinks and embeds for references, Science Commons, Eliminate silos, 3 stages, Conception of ideas, Publishers: a public good in private hands, => Open Access, PLoS ONE, Need for a rating system implemented in our public research environment, Results, Verifications

Part 2: Reinventing knowledge structuring

Examples of ways for structuring knowledge

coordinated cellular activity in your brain

spatial arrangements of sheets of paper

numeric arrangements of digital documents

practical aspects of organizing knowledge in online environments

incremental and continuous

whole article openly accessible right form the start.

Documents can be edited simultaneously by multiple authors

Identify author's contributions and trace history of document versions

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

=> reduce redundancies

could make article harder to understand for an outsider, => less cross-fertilization with other research fields

scholarly pages on the web are not optimally connected

groupware, wikis, problems in Wikipedia, vandalism, notability, No Original Research, more scholarly wikis are available, OpenWetWare, Scholarpedia, Citizendium, analysis of desirable features of scholarly wikis

groupware, non-wiki

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

Paper-based

Online-based, Wikis, Mindmaps

"micropublishing" (ff Michael Nielsen)

insert new information at any time, e.g. make blog post updates via a wiki page (a proof of principle e.g. for scholarly reviews on a topic)

?

simultaneous writing

needs a good version management (if not available, time span agreements useful), may be easier if authors work in different time zones

authors must be aware of what may cause any trouble, e.g. differences in, levels of expertise, cultural background, inappropriate levels of politeness, technical skill levels, technical and financial access to shared tools

?

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

relation of

how visible is this relation?

how are the levels of this organized?

?

contextualisation (consider language / language independence / file format)

interlinking (vice versa)

via hyperlinking

ontological framing

redundancy, kinds of : function : purpose?, intended audience?

?

Related posts not cited in article yet

Part 3: Reinventing science funding

Public funding environments

Role of players, Scientists, Proposers, Commenters/ Reviewers, Collaborators, Observers, With expertise/tools, Without expertise/tools, Science funders, Sole funder, Joint funder, ?, Science journalists, active scientists who are doing science communication (on the sidelines, or more), who actively promote their results/ actively create their own visbility, who actively write (as insiders) about what others are doing, ?, journalists, blogger-journalists, ?, The public, with web access and web literacy, other, ?, 'Publishers', not-for-profit, OA (open access), TA (toll access), hybrid, ?, for-profit, OA, TA, hybrid, ?, author charges ('page charges'), no author charges (author does not pay anything to the publisher), ?, those who organize and administer the switch from funder prompt to applicant prompt, 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..., is this still true?, in HEP only?

types of funding, funder prompts applicant activity (the model so far), Funders issue a call for proposals, Classical grant schemes, Call to fund infrastructure, Call to fund temporary infrastructure, Call to fund long-term infrastructure, Call to fund acquisition of data, Call to fund acquisition of preliminary data, Examples, NSF RAPID/EAGER (formerly SGER) lines, R21 Program at NIH, Call to fund acquisition of further data, Regular, hypothesis-driven research at most funding agencies, Call to fund 'making publically available on the web' ('publish' may have become an old-fashioned concept?), open access, to text, click & have it (registration-free), with free user registration, to non-printables, click & have it, with free user registration, to data, click & have it, with free user registration, to processes?, ?, to references, any references used should ideally be open access, too (minimum: indicate which of the references lead to OA sources), References, Philosophies of funding, Science competitions, X Prize, Science prizes, Examples, ONS Challenge, Millenium Problems, Nobel Prizes, Baseline grants: No direct interaction between funder and fundee necessary, support is institutionalized for a defined duration once eligibility criteria are met, Eligibility criteria, Duration, References, "NSERC cost of peer review" paper, applicant prompts funder activity (funders to compete for the best proposals), Call to fund infrastructure, Call to fund temporary infrastructure, Call to fund long-term infrastructure, Call to fund acquisition of data, Call to fund acquisition of preliminary data, Call to fund acquisition of further data, Call to fund 'making publically available on the web' ('publish' may have become an old-fashioned concept?), open access, to text, click & have it (registration-free), with free user registration, to non-printables, click & have it, with free user registration, to data, click & have it, with free user registration, to processes?, ?, to references, any references used should ideally be open access, too (minimum: indicate which of the references lead to OA sources)

Assessment, Assessment of a team effort, Public ranking and discussion of proposals at all stages, 'How about public, digg-like, review on a website? Where the author can defend the proposal in public, take in criticisms, improve the proposal in real time, etc.'; asks BoraZ 2009-04-08 (see note), any other sources for this idea or similar?, any difference between baseline grants and non-baseline grants in this respect?, ?, Assessment of individual contributions, Attribution, author attribution, lists all author names, author identites?, only one author by this name?, which of the persons by this name is meant here?, is the name a pseudonym?, multiple identities?, non ego-centric / 'communist' / queer?, Karma concepts as at Slashdot, ?, ?, micro attribution, what / when / by whom (time slider), how much / how useful (ranking of author names - unless ranked alphabetically), ?, ?, ?

Communication, Integration with public knowledge environments, Integration with public research environments, Integration with science policy, Integration with education

non-public funding environments (see also Part V)

Sketched out in words

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

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

'open' accessibility

open to whom? (read/ write/ delete/ revert/ admin... ?), who is sought for?, where is the project announced?, by whom is the project announced?, in which language(s)?, initial special invitations?, ?, who is welcome?, if they come on their own accord, by chance, by search, by ..., if they are recommended, by whom?, for what reasons?, any other aspects of the attention economy relevant here?, whose privileges are inscribed into the project's setup?

barriers?, barriers too high, (technological) knowledge barriers?, e.g. do I know such an opportunity exists?, e.g. do I know how best to use the tool?, e.g. do I know what is appropriate to contribute?, e.g. do I know what is acceptable (not) to do?, e.g. when is it to be published and where?, who decides how on the when and the where?, ?, language barriers?, e.g. am I comfortable with the language(s) this discussion is in?, e.g. may I contribute in a language other than the one(s) used already?, ?, technical barriers?, what is the level of infrastructure needed?, (where) do I get an internet connection?, how much of a daily effort to get to the box?, how reliable is the internet connection?, how fast is my internet connection?, which programmes do I have access to?, which non-freeware programmes can I afford?, ?, financial barriers?, how much do I have to invest in money?, 'page charges', no submission fees for authors, ?, can I afford to spend my time on this? (what will be my gain with respect to what I am being paid for)?, ?, cultural and social barriers?, e.g. what may be written about in public?, which hegemonies are at play here: race/ class/ gender/ 'abledness'/ sexual orientation/ age/ religion... world views?, e.g. what is advisable (not) to talk about here?, e.g. better just read and not write anything myself?, e.g. better to not show I am here?, ?, legal barriers?, e.g. may I read this even though I am not sure how to reference it?, ?, yet other barriers?, ?, effect: too few bytes added, about fine, amount of people participating, kinds of interests involved, focus of topic agreed on, aim of topic agreed on, branching out here and there is welcome, time / space of 'publication' agreed on, ?, barriers too low, too many bytes added, ideas start wandering without due attribution (provide a tool and some technical help on the HOW TO), vandalism, attacks on technological basis of collaboration tool, taking away too much by deleting, other, ?, hurdles unknown/ invisible as yet, habits/ ways of doing things?, ?, ?

?

open co-authorship

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

(see also above 'open' accessibility)

?

any other aspects?

[have a go]

?

Part 5: Commodification of academic research

some definitions

Mertonian ideals, what do these mean today?, ?

commodification vs commercialisation

?

?

research process

infrastructure issues

input phase

process phase

output phase