diigo research

Posted to Diigo 08/31/2010

    • technology is finally at a point that if we don’t use it now, then we are holding back the progress of science
    • The dominant mode of communicating research results is through peer-reviewed literature. This dates back to more than 300 years ago when scholarly societies formed and needed a way to present their findings
    • Publishers are already experimenting with the models, but they are waiting for something before going full force. They are waiting for us, the researchers
    • We could choose to publish in only Open Access. We could choose to reward tenure for Open Data. We could choose to only reward publications or data that are proven to be reused and make either a marked economic or research impact. Instead, we choose to follow a model that promotes prestige as the primary objective
    • Each time we hold back data or publish research that isn’t immediately open to all, we have chosen to be on the wrong side of history.
    • We could wait for policy changes from the top, but that is neither a timely, nor guaranteed solution
    • It is not uncommon to see research that is already two years old before it sees the light of day. This cannot be good for the progress of science.
    • “Article-level metrics” (ALM) is one step toward weaning the addiction that we have with journal impact factors. Here, we disassociate the significance of the article from the prestige of the journal that it is packaged in
    • One way to promote the sharing of knowledge, and thus be on the right side of history, is through reputation metrics. Unlike previous measurements for impact though, this would be designed to reward researchers who contribute to Open Data and science online
    • Platforms such as Mendeley can have a hand in meeting both the first and second conditions. Mendeley is more than just a reference manager, it is also a system that aggregates the metadata of millions of documents and provides authors the opportunity to promote their works
    • Those researchers who openly and quickly publish research or data for download will be rewarded.* Those who do not will adapt or risk falling into obscurity. As we wait for policy changes to be enacted by the top, we must act at the bottom to encourage a behavioral change in how we share our knowledge
    • All of our attention is focused on real and virtual classrooms and we often neglect the space between the lecture theater and the LMS. Attention, I think, needs to be given to unacknowledged learning and teaching places. Around the water cooler, between computer terminals, seated in the cafetaria, texting on mobile phones, waiting on strategically placed benches, posted on signboards, relaxing in a residence hall etc.
    • Learning designers need to think between the corridors and computers, and ask how can these spaces be used to support learning.
    • Where discussions and clarification took place either in the lecture / tutorial / virtual room, teachers and students that use networked digital devices can conduct their teaching and learning seamlessly across both physical and virtual spaces, synchronously and asynchronously
    • learning designers also need to find a way to support the creation of informal learning space between the virtual world and the classroom place.
    • If our attention is focused only between the real and virtual classrooms then it’s likely that we’ll fail in our attempt to use these new spaces constructively
    • don’t forget about the inbetween spaces and ask how you can support students freedom to engage in self-directed and independent learning outside the formally planned and tutor-directed activities
twitter feed

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-03-01

  • Revisiting the Purpose of Higher Education and Courses. Why teaching content isn’t enough #
  • First two weeks of OpenContent at UCT #
  • The Open Source Way: Creating and Nurturing Communities of Contributors #
  • Why technology is not disrupting the university sector #
  • @weblearning I like it, thanks for the heads up 🙂 #
  • RT @weblearning: “key difference between informal and formal learning is .. permeable classroom walls” writes @bfchirpy #
  • Establish Authority by Creating Value. A few suggestions on ways to better establish yourself within your field #
  • Highlighting E-Readers. Short comment by Downes on a post highlighting issues with e-readers for scholarship #
  • Short post on the predominantly content focused nature of course planning #
  • RT @melaniemcbride: one of the downsides of fewer [bloggers] is a preference for the shotgun-share over [hard work & analysis/commentary] #
  • @KEC83 #Diigo ed. acc? Been trying on/off for 6 months with not even a single response from them. Very disappointing #
  • @RonaldArendse looks interesting, but I think it’s going to be a while before we’ll see anything like that locally 🙂 #
  • Policing YouTube: Medical Students, Social Media and Digita Identity #
  • Sunset at Mont Flour in Stellenbosch is beautiful #
  • apophenia » Blog Archive » ChatRoulette, from my perspective. Thoughts on the video service by danah boyd #
  • Johannes Cronje: Wendren’s PPC Bag. Cool example of South African innovation #
  • @meganbur welcome to the revolution 🙂 #
  • At for UWC writing retreat. There are worse places to be. Some good insight into the writing process #
  • @sbestbier Thanks for the suggest, much appreciated 🙂 #
  • Science in the Open » Blog Archive » Peer review: What is it good for? #
  • It’s not peer review if you aren’t familiar with the subject « Connectivism #
  • elearnspace. everything elearning: Scholarship in an age of participation (Siemens) #

Powered by Twitter Tools


Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-11

Powered by Twitter Tools

twitter feed

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-12-07

Powered by Twitter Tools

open access research technology

Open research

I’ve been thinking about the concept of open research since listening to Jon Udell’s interview with Jean-Claude Bradley on his open notebook science project.  The idea is similar to the open approach to writing software in that the process is transparent and open to scrutiny by anyone.  This could have important implications for the soundness of the methodology behind the research, the distribution of results and the potential for massive collaboration on research projects.

Open research makes use of social tools like wikis (wikiresearch), blogs, Google Docs and social networks of like-minded individuals, that allow for collaboration, rapid publication and increased access to information for anyone with an internet connection.  There is also the suggestion that openness in research could lead to more innovation by stimulating ideas that allow others to make contributions to the body of knowledge that may not have been the original intent of the researcher.

However, not everyone is comfortable with the idea of conducting research in an open environment, that is subject to scrutiny by everyone and largely against the culture of secrecy in scientific research.  There are definitely issues with the process and one example of how conflict could arise is by publishing primary data openly.  This has the obvious benefit in that anyone could take that information and use it in ways not intended by the researcher, taking data that may have never seen the light of day and creating new knowledge.  The downside is that someone else could beat you to the finish line by publishing your results and negating your work.

There are other approaches that aren’t as “open” as publishing everything concerned with the project.  For example, you could choose to publish only your methodology or ideas around where the project is headed and request input around that, or raw data could be summarised before publishing online.  Other, similar fields are also becoming more mainstream, like open peer review, in which the peer review process of publication is made public, and open notebook science.

What will the world be like when all knowledge is freely available?