OpenWetWare:Headquarters/Research Pathway Brainstorming061308: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
====General====
====General====
Tools for choosing what to work on and choosing when to stop
*Tools/protocols for choosing what to work on and choosing when to stop
*Mechanisms for enabling team projects (what prevents it now?)
*Mechanisms for getting people to work together, better prizes and rewards


====11 Publication:====  
====1 Ideas:====
Research is not conducted in  vacuum need to couple conclusions and publications with the next set of questions.
*Ideas Marketplace: Makes it easier to make a collaborative arrangement
1) a mechanism for going from a publication back to the idea pool
2)  mechanism for  others (possibly nonresearchers) to pose questions, problems, ideas for research


====3.5 Background Research -> Experimentation====
====3 Background Research:====
• Open funding and microfunding. Outsourcing in a lab. Lab needs resources, can plug into a microfunding model or network
Opportunities for better Referencing
*crowdsourcing for background research. What are the standard set of references/citations for X. DOIs for sets of references; abstraction for references


4 Experimentation:
*What’s the right way to present your data?
• Standardized interfaces for controlling instrumentation via OWW
**best practices for reporting data
• Outsourced experimentation
**open data conventions; examples for presenting data; (e.g. error bars and statistics)
*Meta-level tools for finding publications
*A way of conducting semantic research of articles and a way of extracting info from them
*A way to  ask research questions and find the right people who can answer


• Reward system for amateur researchers
====3.5 Background Research -> Experimentation====
• Academic “innocentive” for research: Is there a way to orally ingest perfume?” “I’d like a biobrick vector that does X” Research marketplace; a mailing list; Craigslist for research
*Open funding and microfunding. Outsourcing in a lab. Lab needs resources, can plug into a microfunding model or network
 
1 Ideas Marketplace: Makes it easier to make a collaborative arrangement
 
• Microcredit for specialists who only want to work on part of the problem -> Attaching your credentials to a chunk of data
 
3 Background Research:    -> REFERENCING
Lots of reinventing of the wheel. Need crowdsourcing for background research. What are the standard set of references/citations for X.  DOIs for sets of references; abstraction for references
 
•What’s the right way to present your data?
--best practices for reporting data
--Open data conventions; examples for presenting data; (e.g. error bars and statistics)
• Meta level of finding publications
• Semantic research of articles and a way of extracting info from them
 
 
• A way to  ask research questions and find the right people who can answer
 
• Apply peer review earlier than the publication phase; rolling, cycle-wide peer review; PR at the idea stage
(Dotted line to …)
• Capturing the value of negative results; collecting all the stuff that doesn’t make it into the paper
like peer review; deleted scenes, the director’s cut; alternate endings
 
8 – 11 As you hit a point in the review process should be less back and forth between you and the publisher, fewer publication delays. A publication process where the author has control; a centralized document -> CVS for publication: from submission to publication; Single document continuous version control.
 
• Tools for writing: “A sea of unreviewed manuscripts” where the editor comes to you. A manuscript marketplace. Allows for
- rougher manuscripts
- less stigma for having an error
- Metric of error correction for each publication – finer-grained metrics


6 Analysis : An easy way to integrate your data into other people’s data sets
====4 Experimentation:====
*Standardized interfaces for controlling instrumentation via OWW
*System for outsourcing experimentation
*A way of assigning microcredit for specialists who only want to work on part of the problem -> Attaching your credentials to a chunk of data
*A reward system for amateur researchers
*An academic “innocentive” for research: Is there a way to orally ingest perfume?” “I’d like a biobrick vector that does X” Research marketplace; could be a mailing list; Craigslist for research
*Consensus protocols: Standardized versions of protocols that are easy to find and free;
*Different  kinds of protocols and methods that provide information and how-tos for all phases and aspects of research;
*Building communities and networks at all steps on the cycle,
*Mechanisms for specialization in communities
*Better ways of getting your activities out in the world; subscribe to your colleagues’ work;
*Community building in the experimental cycle; example is a feed of “everyone else who’s using this protocol.”


• More team projects  what prevents it now?
====6 Analysis====
• Mechanisms for getting people to work together, better prizes and rewards
*An easy way to integrate your data into other people’s data sets
4 Experimentation
Consensus protocols: Standardized versions of protocols that are easy to find and free;


• Different  kinds of protocols and methods for all phases and aspects of research; Communities and networks at all steps, building on specialization in communities
====8 – 11 Publishing Cycle:====
*A way to apply peer review earlier than the publication phase; rolling, cycle-wide peer review; PR at the idea stage
(Dotted line to …)
*Mechanism for capturing the value of negative results; collecting all the stuff that doesn’t make it into the paper like peer review; deleted scenes, the director’s cut; alternate endings
*Implement CVS for publication: from submission to publication;
*Design a publication process where the author has control; a centralized document with continuous version control. (As you hit a point in the review process should be less back and forth between you and the publisher, fewer publication delays.)
*Build tools for writing: Drew envisions “A sea of unreviewed manuscripts” where the editor comes to you. A manuscript marketplace. Allows for …
**feedback on rougher manuscripts
**less stigma for having an error
**Metric of error correction for each publication – finer-grained metrics


• Better ways of getting your activities out in the world; subscribe to your colleagues work; Community building in the experimental cycle; Have a feed of “everyone else who’s using this protocol.
====11 – 1 Publication -> Ideas: ====
Research is not conducted in vacuum; there’s a need to couple conclusions and publications with the next set of questions.
*Need a mechanism for going from a publication back into to the idea pool
*Need a mechanism for  others (possibly nonresearchers) to pose questions, problems, ideas for research

Revision as of 19:20, 13 June 2008

General

  • Tools/protocols for choosing what to work on and choosing when to stop
  • Mechanisms for enabling team projects (what prevents it now?)
  • Mechanisms for getting people to work together, better prizes and rewards

1 Ideas:

  • Ideas Marketplace: Makes it easier to make a collaborative arrangement

3 Background Research:

Opportunities for better Referencing

  • crowdsourcing for background research. What are the standard set of references/citations for X. DOIs for sets of references; abstraction for references
  • What’s the right way to present your data?
    • best practices for reporting data
    • open data conventions; examples for presenting data; (e.g. error bars and statistics)
  • Meta-level tools for finding publications
  • A way of conducting semantic research of articles and a way of extracting info from them
  • A way to ask research questions and find the right people who can answer

3.5 Background Research -> Experimentation

  • Open funding and microfunding. Outsourcing in a lab. Lab needs resources, can plug into a microfunding model or network

4 Experimentation:

  • Standardized interfaces for controlling instrumentation via OWW
  • System for outsourcing experimentation
  • A way of assigning microcredit for specialists who only want to work on part of the problem -> Attaching your credentials to a chunk of data
  • A reward system for amateur researchers
  • An academic “innocentive” for research: Is there a way to orally ingest perfume?” “I’d like a biobrick vector that does X” Research marketplace; could be a mailing list; Craigslist for research
  • Consensus protocols: Standardized versions of protocols that are easy to find and free;
  • Different kinds of protocols and methods that provide information and how-tos for all phases and aspects of research;
  • Building communities and networks at all steps on the cycle,
  • Mechanisms for specialization in communities
  • Better ways of getting your activities out in the world; subscribe to your colleagues’ work;
  • Community building in the experimental cycle; example is a feed of “everyone else who’s using this protocol.”

6 Analysis

  • An easy way to integrate your data into other people’s data sets

8 – 11 Publishing Cycle:

  • A way to apply peer review earlier than the publication phase; rolling, cycle-wide peer review; PR at the idea stage

(Dotted line to …)

  • Mechanism for capturing the value of negative results; collecting all the stuff that doesn’t make it into the paper like peer review; deleted scenes, the director’s cut; alternate endings
  • Implement CVS for publication: from submission to publication;
  • Design a publication process where the author has control; a centralized document with continuous version control. (As you hit a point in the review process should be less back and forth between you and the publisher, fewer publication delays.)
  • Build tools for writing: Drew envisions “A sea of unreviewed manuscripts” where the editor comes to you. A manuscript marketplace. Allows for …
    • feedback on rougher manuscripts
    • less stigma for having an error
    • Metric of error correction for each publication – finer-grained metrics

11 – 1 Publication -> Ideas:

Research is not conducted in vacuum; there’s a need to couple conclusions and publications with the next set of questions.

  • Need a mechanism for going from a publication back into to the idea pool
  • Need a mechanism for others (possibly nonresearchers) to pose questions, problems, ideas for research