Open science write-up round-up

As mentioned on FriendFeed, there seems to be some interest in creating a round-up of open science related content on the web, at least enough for me to attempt a first crack at it. Granted, it’s mostly because I’d like to follow this movement a little more efficiently (and because I’m drawn to organizing stuff – in principle).

While a blog carnival is a well-established format for this sort of thing, my impression is that it won’t fully capture the extent of what is being written about open science. There are definitely many blogs talking about open science, but there are also news articles, conference material, journal articles, and even FriendFeed threads that are relevant and add interesting angles to the discussion. So I propose a round-up of pretty much any kind of web writing or resource. Of course, this could turn out to be inappropriate; we’ll just have to see. Depending on how much new material appears how quickly, the round-up could be monthly, biweekly*, or weekly.

The plan is to put together a first edition and have it posted here by the end of next week (Sept 19 or thereabouts). Suggestions and submissions (your own writing or links to others) are definitely welcome. Please email** submissions to me at shwu19 at stanford dot edu; suggestions obviously can go in the comments here.

* biweekly = every 2 weeks. I had to look this up because I wasn’t sure which of “biweekly” and “bimonthly” was the correct word. Just in case anyone else has been confused by this…

** I first thought it would be okay to have people link to submissions in the comments. Then I realized that might half defeat the purpose of the round-up. ;)

5 Responses to Open science write-up round-up

  1. shwu says:

    Oh, and any suggestions for the title of this round-up? “Corpus callosum” (uniting information from different sources)? “Rodeo” (rounding up information)? “Scientia passis” (“science wide open” in Latin, or something like that, I really don’t know Latin)?

  2. rpg says:

    I’m dead interested, will think about this.

  3. bill says:

    It’s a great idea, but I think it will entail an enormous amount of work — if not already, then in the near future an overwhelming amount. (Think about how much work it takes Peter Suber and Gavin Baker to run OAN.)

    So, though I have no specific mechanism in mind, I suggest looking into ways to make as much of the work as possible distributed/crowdsourced — thinking of Postgenomic, or a group blog, or a wiki that autodumps to a blog, or something along those lines. Just don’t get volunteered to do it all yourself! (I am, of course, up for being one of your minions if you end up with a minion-powered solution.)

  4. nsaunders says:

    I like the idea of aggregating relevant content in a semi-automated way.

    As a little experiment, I’ve set up a Google Blog search for the terms (“open science” OR “science 2.0”), grabbed the RSS and used it as the “blog” for a FriendFeed imaginary friend. I’ll keep an eye on the quantity/type of content for a few days and report back.

  5. shwu says:

    @bill: yes, well that would depend on how comprehensive it ends up being (and this could be something that ramps up over time) – and it could well morph into something distributed/crowdsourced.

    Now that I think about it, a FriendFeed room is quite close to that, but I don’t think people will want to split off another room that would end up overlapping a lot with The Life Scientists. And maybe having the round-up come out in issues/editions rather than incrementally 24/7 is something people would like?

    Hrmmm… more thinking to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s