If you build it, will they come? Web 2.0 in research communication

Quite clearly, the advent of web 2.0 does not pass without effects on how researchers communicate. But how do web 2.0 technologies impact scientific communication? To find out the British Research Information Network commissioned a study and published the results in a report.

In deciding if they will make web 2.0 tools and services part of their everyday practice, the key questions for researchers are the benefits they may secure from doing so, and how it fits with their use of established services. Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication, but as having their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of research. And frequent use of one kind of tool does not imply frequent use of others as well.

(…)

There has been considerable interest in the last two-three years in concepts of open science or open research; and in finding ways to put into effect the proposition that all kinds of information and other resources produced by researchers should flow as public goods into an open infrastructure that supports and facilitates reconfiguration and integration of those resources. Our findings show that very few researchers are as yet operating in this way. About half of respondents to our survey share their work with colleagues, but only a small group of enthusiastic open researchers – 5% of our respondents – publish their outputs and their work in progress openly, using blogs and other tools. Others consider such practices a waste of time, or even that it risks bringing ‘anarchy in science’.

The authors of this study recommend to watch the developments in this field. They do not expect immediate or short term effects on scientific communication. None of the new web 2.0 media do yet replace the traditional scientific communication media. Current users rather see the new media as a broadening of the spectrum of media available.

Procter, R., R. Williams, und J. Stewart (2010), If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0, Research Information Network, London, United Kingdom. http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web_2.0_screen.pdf

Paleontology in the 21st Century

Yesterday I stumbled upon a recently published paper by Wolfgang Kiessling (Natural History Museum Berlin) about the current state of paleontology in Germany.

Kiessling, W. et al., 2010. German Paleontology in the 21st Century. Palaeontologica Electronica, 13(1), 13.1.2E. (online)

In this editorial piece, Kiessling and co-authors reflect on the current state of paleontology in Germany, the reasons why paleontology has become a niche subject, despite the fact that biodiversity studies receive a lot of interest (and money), and despite the fact that paleontology used to be at the core of geology. Kiessling et al. identify a number of factors specific to the situation in Germany, but many factors that can be generalised.

The greatest risk for German paleontology is the continued closure of university departments and the replacement of retired paleontologists by non-paleontologists. This threatens the future of our students in science and the paleontological research community may fall below a critical mass which is needed for innovative research. Some of these problems fall in the responsibility of the paleontologists themselves (e.g., lack of innovative approaches, apparent absence of practical/ economic applicability, tactical mistakes) but others are the result of administrative actions to save or shift resources independent of the quality of research and teaching.

I tend to disagree with Kiessling's identification of cause and effect. (See also in Stratigraphy.net internals "Paleontology - The very late adaptors?" of 15 Feb 2008.) But I do hope, that some will perceive this paper as a wake-up call to move paleontology into the 21st Century.

iGeoInfo - An Obituary

When the "International Coalition for Geoinformatics" (iGeoInfo) was launched at the 2004 International Geological Congress in Florence, Italy, it seemed like the next hot thing, bringing together efforts in the US and Europe in "Coordinating GeoInformatics Efforts in Sedimentary
Geology and Paleobiology." (Klump, Jens, Robert Huber, u. a. (2005), Workshop Launches International Coalition for GeoInformatics, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 86(3), 27-28.)

At the time, the cyberinfrastructure programme in the US was not even a year old and with CHRONOS and GEON two major projects had been launched. Sedimentary geology and palaeontology, two traditionally fractioned fields, had to make sure they don't fall by the wayside.

Meanwhile, the scene has changed dramatically. CHRONOS has faded away, GEON is only a shadow of its former self, and PaleoDB is scrambling for the necessary funds. New kids have appeared on the block and seem to be far more popular with the community, which also translates into NSF support. Being less bullish with the community than the old champs seems to pay off.

As CHRONOS faded away it also let go of the domain igeoinfo.org and iGeoInfo became virtually homeless. A few attempts were made to revive it, but the absence of a common goal led the remaining participants to the conclusion that this wandering soul could now be put to rest.

iGeoInfo may rest in peace.

New business models for earth science data management

The value of data sharing has long been recognised and proclaimed in several manifestos and policies (e.g. Berlin Declaration, Budapest Open Access Initiative, OECD). Funding organisations most strongly support Open Access or even have initiated programs which aim to strengthen data and information infrastuctures (e.g. NSF). The importance of data archiving was also acknowledged by funding agencies and some of them have published good practice guides or data policys which aimed to convince scientists to publish their primary data in appropriate archives.

However, data management costs money. In the past, funding agencies preferred to fund the development of new systems, but they fail to ensure funding long term operation of the resulting infrastructures. Funding organisations have slowly woken up to the problem of how projects can be transformed into infrastructures but the problem is still not solved.

Even though the value of data sharing is recognised, there is little motivation for researchers to prepare their data for online access. It only causes extra work, does not add much to prestige and recognition among peers. From a researcher’s perspective, the money is better spent on further research. In this framework, policies on data sharing remain without effect.

This does not mean that researchers are unwilling. In fact, the majority is willing to share their data but in many cases are frustrated by the difficulties arising when they try to submit their data to a database. Many scientific database operators have not understood the paradigm shift in how the web works, the shift towards user generated content. I know, that mentioning "user generated content" in this context opens a can of worms. The point is, that most scientific databases, especially the publicly mandated ones, are not service oriented and simply rely on their mandate.

The funding agencies are in a dilemma. Their rules make it difficult to adapt to this rapidly evolving field. So, where is the business model to start-up independent and innovative, service oriented scientific databases? Restricted data access and paid services? This will not work because individual researchers are not able and willing to pay. Another possible avenue to obtain funding is to convince researchers of the benefits of data services and join scientific projects e.g. as subcontractors.

For this model to be successful requires motivation on both sides. User frustration needs to be avoided and technical as well as service infrastructure needs to be most up to date. Improved cooperation between data centres surely is an advantage to close own service gaps. Project specific data management networks which can share responsibilities might be a solution to satisfy user needs.

Paleontology – The very late adaptors?

Even though one would think that the systematic nature of paleontology would lend itself well to computer-based approaches, the paleo community has been surprisingly slow to accept these new tools into their mainstream approaches. In the past years, from the perspective of science funding agencies, paleontology and taxonomy were not considered to be "sexy hot issues". Application of paleontology to climate research was fine, but systematic biology was "old school". The fragmentation of the community did not help its cause.

In fact, the closed-shop mentality of some groups has lead to the demise of promising, well funded projects, which were subsequently axed by the funding organisations. These projects had suffocated from their own arrogance.

Is there a lesson to be learnt? Science funders go a lot by what the scientific community wants. And maybe, in the context of web-based stuff, the emphasis should be on service – not on authority.