User:Daniel Mietchen/Notebook/Open Science/2010/09/24: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Autocreate 2010/09/24 Entry for User:Daniel_Mietchen/Notebook/Open_Science)
 
Line 6: Line 6:
| colspan="2"|
| colspan="2"|
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit above this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
==Entry title==
== The evolution of the Library of Open Science ==
* Insert content here...
* A thought experiment on the future of science publishing and libraries, available also via [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG_g5beIAsw YouTube]:


[[Image:PLoS+PLOS-1.gif]]


=== Explanation ===
*At the beginning was the Library: L.
*The concept proliferated, and after a while, some of them became open to the public: +P.
*Yet later, science came into play: +S.
*Soon, Libraries of science started: S ==> LoS.
*The two types of libraries started to interact: PL LoS.
*The [http://www.plos.org Public Libary of Science] was started: PLoS.
*Yet it actually started out as just a Public Library of Science Papers (ignoring the Public Libraries of [http://openwetware.org/ notebooks] and [http://www.science3point0.com/scienceblogs/ blogs], for instance): +P.
*Public Library of Open-Access Science Papers, to be precise: +OA.
*Yet there is [http://www.science3point0.com/evomri/2010/09/19/why-do-we-still-publish-research-via-papers/ no scientific argument for writing papers any more]: -P.
*Access to the scholarly literature is just one aspect of science that needs to be open; we need Open Process Science: OA ==> OP.
*If the whole process is open, that would be true Open Science: -P.
*Thanks to the Openness, there is a capital O in there already, so the small auxiliary one can be dropped: -o.
*Open science is public by default anyway, so no need to state the obvious: -P.
*Let's get started (in German)!
''Note: Uploading problems &mdash; mov and avi versions were too small for Vimeo.''
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
<!-- ##### DO NOT edit below this line unless you know what you are doing. ##### -->
|}
|}


__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 16:14, 23 September 2010

What would science look like if it were open? <html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page
<html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</html>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html>

The evolution of the Library of Open Science

  • A thought experiment on the future of science publishing and libraries, available also via YouTube:


Explanation

  • At the beginning was the Library: L.
  • The concept proliferated, and after a while, some of them became open to the public: +P.
  • Yet later, science came into play: +S.
  • Soon, Libraries of science started: S ==> LoS.
  • The two types of libraries started to interact: PL LoS.
  • The Public Libary of Science was started: PLoS.
  • Yet it actually started out as just a Public Library of Science Papers (ignoring the Public Libraries of notebooks and blogs, for instance): +P.
  • Public Library of Open-Access Science Papers, to be precise: +OA.
  • Yet there is no scientific argument for writing papers any more: -P.
  • Access to the scholarly literature is just one aspect of science that needs to be open; we need Open Process Science: OA ==> OP.
  • If the whole process is open, that would be true Open Science: -P.
  • Thanks to the Openness, there is a capital O in there already, so the small auxiliary one can be dropped: -o.
  • Open science is public by default anyway, so no need to state the obvious: -P.
  • Let's get started (in German)!

Note: Uploading problems — mov and avi versions were too small for Vimeo.


Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Notebook/Open_Science/2010/09/24&oldid=457032"