Scott Aaronson uses an analogy to the game industry to describe the predicament academics are in:

I have an ingenious idea for a company. My company will be in the business of selling computer games.

But, unlike other computer game companies, mine will never have to hire a single programmer, game designer, or graphic artist. Instead I’ll simply find people who know how to make games, and ask them to donate their games to me. Naturally, anyone generous enough to donate a game will immediately relinquish all further rights to it. From then on, I alone will be the copyright-holder, distributor, and collector of royalties.

This is not to say, however, that I’ll provide no “value-added.” My company will be the one that packages the games in 25-cent cardboard boxes, then resells the boxes for up to $300 apiece.

But why would developers donate their games to me? Because they’ll need my seal of approval. I’ll convince developers that, if a game isn’t distributed by my company, then the game doesn’t “count”—indeed, barely even exists—and all their labor on it has been in vain.

As crazy as it sounds, this is exactly the situation with academic publishers. The ‘status quo’ is such that young researchers must publish on established journals (to gain the “seal of approval”). For older researchers, switching to open access publishing doesn’t pay off either: it’d show they don’t believe in the value the journals bring, and they are often editors of those (!).

And this is how the current academic publishing industry survives without adding much value. Survival is not the right word, because the leading firms still carry themselves around with arrogance. At the 2010 Semantic Web conference in Shanghai Jay Katzen, a keynote speaker from Elsevier, announced a big project on using the data on papers to create widgets. The API would allow people to do mashups with scientific data, that could be displayed on the publisher’s page. It was sold as “a new paradigm in the way research information is discovered, used, shared and re-used to accelerate science.” The reaction from the audience was instantaneous: “are you telling us that, not happy with monetizing the data and content we freely give you, you want us to build applications using that content for you to sell?”. The answer was honest: “… huh… yes.”

Today, many journal articles are online. In fact, the papers are often on the author’s homepage, and a simple query on google scholar or MS research search will find them. It is hard to imagine what value a publisher adds here.

However, the alternative is not clear. Open access publishing finds it difficult to obtain sustainable sources of financing. PLoS, the Public Library of Science, is financially sustainable, but ArXiv is struggling.

“Now it’s up to the rest of us to supply the anger.” Says Scott. Now more than 800 researchers have declared a boycott against Elsevier, up from 500 yesterday afternoon. Looks like the anger is there.

(An apology for the lack of posting. Dario has moved on to a position as senior researcher at Wikimedia, and I will be working on my startup full-time in a month. Often, I’ve seen blogpost-worthy issues, but I just didn’t have the mental bandwidth to follow up).

I read a good quote the other day:

“Bollocks to waiting 10 years for progress. I want people to know about it now, and then do something about it” – Dr Paul Fisher

So why do we wait? Why isn’t there immediate publication, analysis and dissemination of data? Publication of Scientific data as it stands is a broken business model…for the most part. The advent of journals like PLoS and their subsequent success shows that the scientific community is taking note of what steps need to be taken. In my short life as a scientist, there has always been one thing that really annoys me. The inefficiency of scientific publishing and subsequent global sharing of knowledge. In terms of making significant advances available to wide audiences as peer reviewed publications, PLoS has it covered. But what about the rest of your research?

What percentage of the figures that went into your undergrad, masters or doctorate thesis were ever published? The ones that you didnt publish were probably good basic science, or figures that didnt tell a complete story. As a PhD student, I became very aware of the fact that a large amount of my data, although good, would never be published as it did not show significant differences. I then began wondering how many times experiments had been repeated globally unnecessarily. And so FigShare started life as an idea for researchers to publish all of their data that would otherwise never leave their lab books. By categorising and tagging the research, it becomes very searchable and other scientists should not reproduce experiments and waste money when they have been conducted several times by other labs. Following the alpha release, FigShare received a lot of attention and a lot of feedback. This caused the site to develop and it now allows the upload of Figures, Datasets and most recently media (eg. videos).

This is not a new idea, and big data and data sharing projects have won several big JISC grants, but your average researcher needs this to be simple in order to adopt. The CKAN repository is a fantastic project which allows you to upload data from any field, such as government finances, weather forecasts and traffic reports. Where I feel this becomes inaccessible for scientists is the ease of uploads. A choice from 50 licenses for your data is intimidating enough to make most postdocs turn and run. For a project like FigShare, the more research that is uploaded, the more useful the site becomes. In order for this to happen, uploading research needs to be simple. This is what FigShare gives you. Give your bit of research, be it a figure, dataset or some other media format a name, hit upload, add details like your name, some tags and you have a nicely presented, citable, published figure.

FigShare now also serves as a repository for preprints figures. ie. Figures that will one day be published but feedback is requested on the prelimonary data. FigShare can be used as a platform to collaborate where users can contact one another and request to use figures in their publications etc. This means that previous unused figures, maybe from unfinished postdocs or PhD projects can be published, gaining the author more publications.

There is also the ability to easily share your figures, datasets and videos via a host of social media platforms through ‘share buttons’ on every page. This is a new way of bringing scientific research online and to a new audience. An example of how this can benefit science is already producing examples such as this one – A lot of scientists hear how social media can benefit research and yet there has been little evidence of how these tools can be exploited to make science more efficient. Imagine real time discussions about science you did yesterday, not last year when you first submitted your paper.

FigShare is a permanent database of your research. To further ensure this, FigShare is supported by Systems Institute. Systems Institute is a not for profit which is providing ongoing support for the hosting of FigShare as it expands. This also allows FigShare to make backups of all of your data each and every day.

So please, upload your data now and do your bit to help science progress in an efficient manner. It’ll probably do wonders for your academic career too!

Koblenz (Germany), 14-15 June 2011
An ACM Web Science Conference 2011 Workshop

Call for papers

The increasing quantity and velocity of scientific output is presenting scholars with a deluge of data. There is growing concern that scholarly output may be swamping traditional mechanisms for both pre-publication filtering (e.g peer review) and post-publication impact filtering (e.g. the Journal Impact Factor).

Increasing scholarly use of Web2.0 tools like CiteULike, Mendeley, Twitter, and blog-style article commenting presents an opportunity to create new filters. Metrics based on a diverse set of social sources could yield broader, richer, and more timely assessments of current and potential scholarly impact. Realizing this, many authors have begun to call for investigation of these “altmetrics.” (see altmetrics.org)

Despite the growing speculation and early exploratory investigation into the value of altmetrics, however, there remains little concrete, objective research into the properties of these metrics: their validity, their potential value and flaws, and their relationship to established measures. Nor has there been any large umbrella to bring these multiple perspectives together. The altmetrics11 workshop aims to  encourage both these. Submissions are invited from a variety of areas:

• New metrics based on social media
• Tracking science communication on the Web
• Relation between traditional metrics and altmetrics
• Peer-review and altmetrics
• Tools for gathering, analyzing, disseminating altmetrics

Important Dates

Submissions

Prospective authors should submit 2-page extended abstracts (max. 1000 words, not including references). If necessary, the workshop organizers will select the most relevant, original, and significant abstracts for presentation. Experimental results will be given preference, followed by technical reports on working altmetrics tools and position papers. All selected submissions will be published online for open peer review and discussion. Authors are encouraged to participate in the discussions of their work. Based on the presentations and online discussion, selected authors may be asked to submit full papers for peer-reviewed proceedings.

Location

The workshop is hosted by the ACM Web Science Conference 2011 (Koblenz, Germany). This interdisciplinary conference focuses on advances in studying the full range of social-technical relationships on the Web. Please visit the Web Science site for more information.

Organizers

• Paul Groth – VU University Amsterdam, NL
• Jason Priem –University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
• Dario Taraborelli – Wikimedia Foundation, USA

The organizers have an interdisciplinary background covering Sociology, Information and Library Science and Computer Science.

After a few months of private testing, Mendeley announced the public release of their open API. This will allow developers and researchers to build applications and data analysis on top of a massive database of human-annotated scientific references.

We are excited to see our friends at Mendeley push forward on the open science front by making their database accessible to third parties and I look forward to seeing what developers will build on top of this data goldmine. In the meantime, check out the Mendeley Developer Portal or follow the dedicated twitter account for updates.

There is only a bunch of tickets left for one of the most exciting annual events in the area of ICT for science. Hosted by Mendeley, Nature and the British Library, the second edition of Science Online London (3-4 September 2010) promises to bring together hackers, academics, publishers and startups in the field of software/services for scientists to discuss “how the Web is changing the way we conduct, communicate, share, and evaluate research”. I will be attending and would love to meet other AcaProd readers there.

Springer announced last week the launch of LaTeXSearch.com, a free online service allowing users to search a huge database of LaTeX snippets from Springer journals and publications. This follows the launch of a similar service, a few months ago exposing Springer’s database of scientific images (which suggests a precise strategy on how to build Web services on top of content in their publication database).

LaTeXSearch does what it promises, using similarity algorithms “to normalize and compare LaTeX strings so that, if similar equations are written slightly differently, the outputs are normalized and matched, granting you the broadest possible results set”. The only glitch is that snippets are not cached but generated on the fly, with the annoying result that it can take quite some time to display the rendered version of LaTeX formulas in search results.

Call for participation for a workshop at CSCW 2010
[submission deadline: November 20, 2009]

The confluence of two major trends in scientific research is leading to an upheaval in standard scientific practice and collaborative technologies. A new generation of scientists, working in large-scale collaborations, is repurposing social software for use in collaborative science. Existing social tools such as chat, IM, and FriendFind are being adopted and modified for use as group problem-solving facilities. At the same time, exponentially greater and more complex datasets are being generated at a rate that is challenging the limits of current hardware, software, and human cognitive capability. A concerted effort to create software that will support new scientific practices and handle this data tsunami is redefining the collaboratory and represents a new frontier for computer supported cooperative work.

This follow-on event to a similarly themed workshop at CHI 2009 is intended to foster community among researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines interested in the changing dynamics of scientific collaborations.

We encourage papers on the following topics, especially those with a focus on changing practices in these areas:

• Collaborative scientific applications concerning data gathering,
  analysis, sharing, and visualization
• Case studies concerning data gathering, analysis, sharing and visualization
• Socio-technical research on scientific collaborations
• Social networks of scientists
• Repurposing social software for science
• Participatory design and/or rapid prototyping for scientific software
• Distributed data gathering and analysis
• Time-critical scientific applications
• Studies of generational differences in how science is done
• Cross-functional applications and comparisons of a scientific to
  a non-scientific field

For more information, please see the workshop web site:
http://www.sci.utah.edu/cscw2010/

Organizers:

• Cecilia Aragon, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, CRAragon@lbl.gov
• Jeffrey Heer, Stanford University, jheer@cs.stanford.edu
• Charlotte Lee, University of Washington, cplee@u.washington.edu
• Claudio Silva, University of Utah, csilva@sci.utah.edu

My colleague Alastair is conducting a survey about online academic collaboration, use of tools and attitudes to technology in the Academia as part of the Qlectives project. All participants who supply an email address (and complete the questionnaire by the 14 November) will be entered into a prize draw.

The Qlectives project based at the University of Surrey is conducting a survey to investigate how scientists collaborate and use technology. The questionnaire should take around 20 minutes to complete and is being conducted anonymously and confidentially.

As a way of saying thank you to those who take part, we will hold a prize draw for 5 x £20 Amazon vouchers when we have finished
collecting data (we anticipate that this will be around the 14 November 2009). To be considered in the prize draw, simply leave your
email address on the final page of the questionnaire, and we will contact the lucky winners.

A more detailed description of the Qlectives project and this study can be found on the first page of the questionnaire. Please also feel
free to share the study with other colleagues who you think would be interested in taking part.

CC-licensed image courtesy of Enrique Burgos Garcia

One of the themes we’ve been discussing here is the idea that prestige and attention are the main currencies of academia. So it only makes sense that you want your online presence to be an accessible and positive reflection of your work and, at the very least, you want to be distinguishable from all of the other John Smiths in the world.

MIT has recently put together a tool called Personas which attempts to figure out this question of online identity. I say attempts because to be honest, it’s a bit hit and miss. The design looks pretty good but the results seem to change each time you run it, you can’t review the underlying data and it doesn’t even have a roll-over to quantify each chunk of your profile (e.g. percent of total, source documents etc).

[click for bigger]

It’s a noble effort though and it got me thinking that there are two sides to the question of online identity.

• User perspective: It’s a pain having a different user name and password for every website so initiatives like OpenID and Shibboleth should make things easier by providing common log-on standards. Similarly APML (Attention Profile Markup Language) is an emerging technology for customizing content based on your interests and habits. Both technologies are valuable for improving your online experience.
• Search perspective: The second issue is being able to search for someone and know that the results pertain to a specific person. The user perspective technologies discussed above can help in this regard, as they establish a common link between all of your online activities. And although I’ve misplaced the link somewhere, I’ve heard of some researchers using generic online data to reverse-engineer a unique identify (e.g. a Joe from California on Facebook here, a Joe who works at UCLA in biology there, etc.).

Clearly there are a lot of privacy issues involved as marketers (and governments) would love to have this sort of detailed record of who went where doing what. But let’s come back to the question of academic online identity. For a user perspective, I think we’re getting there. I can’t speak for everyone obviously but at Imperial, my single sign-on gives access to my publications database, the online journals, administrative data and many other facilities both on the local network and the wider web.

From a search perspective, there’s a way to go before we can amalgamate our various online activities into a consistent verifiable public identity. Yet the academic environment is the perfect place to start building and testing these identity systems. There’s a wealth of metadata available in journals (citations, institutions etc) and one could establish fairly well-defined problem boundaries for example by using the .edu, .ac.uk or journal publisher domains. Google Scholar probably already does this to some extent but when searching for an author, it doesn’t suggest different unique authors. Instead I would love to have one portal, accessed by a single identity which is verified by some official higher education authority, that could crawl the web and aggregate publications, blogs, newspaper articles, conference appearances, etc and combine this with social meta-data from citations or other sources (e.g. LinkedIn). Users could create public profiles and the private data could be useful for determining discipline rankings and influence (e.g. the IDEAS ranking of economists) and so on.

There’s a lot going on in this area and I’ve probably only skimmed the surface. But I wanted to raise the issue and see if anyone had any thoughts about how online identity issues for academics could be handled. At the very least, have a play with the Personas thingy and see if you, like me, are 5% illegal.

Looks like the Connotea team is on the right track. Instead of trying to bolt something to insert references into word, they are trying to go straight to wave.

We have blogged before about what a good integration between references and writing tools should look like, and quite honestly, Igor looks like it’s really getting it in terms of agility. You can specify a few terms and it disambiguates that into the reference you need. Looks smarter than the approach that endnote/bibTeX/zotero/Mendeley use. It only works for the online reference managers citeUlike and Connotea, though.

I’m not sure the references are portable, i.e., if I copy/paste a chunk of text with references, they come along to wherever I paste it to (it must be another wave, in this case). Endnote/bibTeX get this right, although they depend on a local file that you would have to send along.

As things stand, I think wave has a very good chance of becoming _the_ platform for collaborative scientific writing. You may have to convince your collaborators to try it (and some must have been put off by Google Docs, which is clearly not ready for science), but it could be very motivating to see their writing grow next to yours in real time.

Since wave is a lot more open than Google Docs it would not surprise me to see robots coming up to mend the deficiencies that make Docs unfit for papers: no tables, crossrefs, footnotes, equations, etc. Wave gives you versioning for free, which was another pain point of scientific collaboration.

Igor – a Google Wave robot to manage your references from Stew Fnl on Vimeo.