“Nobody actually owns anything [ideas, ‘their’ bodies, material ‘possessions’, etc.] in fact because we are all a part of an extraordinary regenerative system."~R. Buckminster Fuller

Truely inspiring! Especially the initial story about Timothy Gowers. That's exactly why we believe that the whole scientific community should contribute to the review process of academic publications.

Encouraging junior scientists to embrace the open science paradigm is important and is a good start. Another fundamental change needs to be implemented is in the institutional performance evaluation system to reward and recognize these activities as scholarly work that is as important as publications and services.

There are of course many barriers in a capitalist society, but we can learn these from FOSS as well. Obviously the scientist need money to buy food and whatnot so the people who use the advances will have to realize that and donate to the scientist directly rather then paying via a patent. This is probably the biggest roadblock for open-anything.

This is one very good reason why some scientists might be reluctant to go with this approach called the low hanging fruit phenamone. A scientist might fear that he might have a good idea, but never got around to developing it fully because he was doing something else (or even worse, some beaucratic administration task related to this first task). This is frustrating enough when it happens by its own accord, but worse when I was the one who helped it materialize.

"A foundational premise of the market economy is singular ownership, a metaphysical notion, clear and simple, as all ideas and physical goods are transient and serially developed through the group mind, and there's no way to make a permanent association to ownership over the long term."~Peter Joseph - Origins and Adaptations, Part 1

There will be fantastic if we can export the Open Science to the Open Heatlh with a real Crowsourcing of health diagnosis and problems.

I need some videos telling me how to write paper and make the research, someone can recommend some ？

Does anyone know what the other nineteen most cited physics books of all time is? The description claims that "Quantum Computation and Information" is one of the twenty most cited physics books of all time. Please help!

Nature is launching openacces journal, so we're slowly changing the paradigms

Hipster Computer Science did open science before it was cool. Seriously, I'm glad Computer Science--free and open source software--has blazed a trail for the rest of science to follow. Let's roll.

this is why i support the Zeitgeist Movement

TED talks do it again

The only problem with open science is that it is not stimulated, as he also mentioned with the examples. It may be naievity that comes to mind when you think of it, imagine if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates would have shared their initial discoveries directly. They would have made their own competitors rich, taking their chances of succes away from them: Gates and Jobs may never have discovered some of the things they did as they could ve lacked the funding for it

@pussavia

4 жыл бұрын

It is indeed a risk. However, registering your ideas and projects does not mean showing them to anybody. Different parts of pre-registrations are disclosed differently to help creators retain the ownership of their ideas. Moreover, open science is also intended as a way to put a time-stamp on your idea: you register it, it has a date, your name, and nobody can tell it is theirs - it is clearly yours. This blog example is a cool thing, but Open Science is different in many ways!

i thought that he will present a new software, politics or structure to made this possible.. Just a call to do that, i guess is not enought.

The problem is that scientists literally live off their credit. What is necessary is some kind of system/tool to fix this.

@trooogdooor What does a scientist sound like?

@trooogdooor I've been through it. Its not a pretty business. Researchers are treated like shit and often don't get the credit even after doing all the work. What I suggest is increasing incentives to researchers. This sharing and caring stuff is a nice ideal, and I wish it would work, but I just don't see it. At the same time, researchers should be given more control to counteract big pharma's influence. But thats just a pipe dream for now as well.

Just to play devil's advocate here: how do we know that adding more eyes to look over a data set will necessarily improve the pace of science? Will adding more people generate more signal or more noise in the search for scientific truths? And what is to prevent science from being turned into a dictatorship of the majority when all data is open? What is to prevent established interests from reinterpreting open data to fit their agenda?

@ArdvarkOfDeath You cannot do science, without the funding. And you dont get funding, without credit, etc.

This is silly I mean it"s good to share information but every one knows whats will happen once a good idea is shared some one else takes the credit & it is usually some big company white deep pocket's. Even if your lucky to get some credit you will not take a share of the money they are going to make off you.

@pussavia

4 жыл бұрын

It is indeed a risk. However, registering your ideas and projects does not mean showing them to anybody. Different parts of pre-registrations are disclosed differently to help creators retain the ownership of their ideas. Moreover, open science is also intended as a way to put a time-stamp on your idea: you register it, it has a date, your name, and nobody can tell it is theirs - it is clearly yours. This blog example is a cool thing, but Open Science is different in many ways!

too bad most people are greedy .

So normal is to believe in your imaginary friend?