Flags and Lollipops

Monday, March 10, 2008

New JoVE blog & commenting on papers

Anna Kushnir's new blog for JoVE is up and running (actually it has been up and running for a while, I'm a bit behind with blogging. Those January Open Science posts are coming at some point, too). It's a nice mix of content.

Of particular interest are a couple of interesting entries talking about the online participation - or lack thereof - of scientists. See also Noah Gray's take on neuroscientists and web 2.0 and David Crotty's 'why web 2.0 is failing in biology' post.

Did you skip over all those links? You shouldn't, really. At least read David Crotty's.

So, yeah, anyway, why scientists don't comment on papers - my take is that being too busy and being afraid of the consequences don't come into it.

Sure, they're valid concerns - but everybody is busy at work and everybody realizes that what you say on the internet is recorded forever by Googlebot. People still write ranty forum posts and blog comments.

IMHO the main reasons scientists don't leave comments are:

There's no point - who's going to read it? Will you get any feedback? Will you get any credit for it?

and

It's too much work - writing a comment should be a one click operation. Well, two clicks, one to get the focus in the textbox and the other to press 'submit'.

Science publishers can address both of these issues, but we've been failing to do so.

Comments and trackbacks Feel free to post your comments Blogger Neil Blogger Ian Mulvany Blogger Bill Hooker Blogger Neil Blogger McDawg Anonymous David Crotty Anonymous David Crotty . This post has trackbacks.

Trackbacks:

7 Comments:

At March 11, 2008 12:18 AM, Blogger Neil said...

Those are great (and to me, rather depressing) links.

I agree that time constraints and lack of rewards are not the whole story. I fear what it comes down to is that research academics are just really narrow-minded. We are taught all through our careers that the sole measure of our worth is highly-cited, first author papers in high-impact journals and nothing else is important. We teach our graduate students to become engrossed in the minutiae of their day-to-day existence to the exclusion of all else. We actively promote wall-building around academic disciplines, so as biologists will say "but that's computer science - nothing to do with me".

I've always worked as a "bioinformatician amongst biologists". I know for sure that if you fired off a few keywords at them that you, I and other web enthusiasts take for granted as common knowledge: "connotea", "citeulike", "jove", "del.icio.us" - not one of my peers would know what you are talking about.

It's sad because it sets up an "us and them" situation - but maybe that's a true reflection. I can't help but notice how many of the people that I know, respect and interact with on the web have moved out of academia into science/web publishing, industry or pure IT.

 
At March 11, 2008 10:33 AM, Blogger Ian Mulvany said...

I think another issue is that a comment on a blog, at the moment, remains attached to the blog rather than being visible as part of a wider conversation.

Blog posts that talk about scientific subjects mostly cite other blog posts rather than the academic paper, and drilling down from a conversation around a series of blog posts to the paper is currently rather hard.

I still feel it's early days, and semantic tools should help at some point with the creation of a tool that fetches conversations around a paper from the paper homepage.

This can sort of be done at the moment in a very limited sense with a limited number of tools for a limited number of papers, but it needs to be pervasive and transparent.

After that another problem that needs to be addresses is how to display a series of comments on a blog in a way that is intuitive to digest. We don't even do this with citations at the moment, and there the structure of the data is so much better than with blog comments.

Early days, early days.

 
At March 11, 2008 3:56 PM, Blogger Bill Hooker said...

Neil: I'm a biologist, and I use connotea regularly, I back up to citeulike, I've met the founder of JoVE and I won't use delicious because corporate scumbags Yahoo own it, so I use hacker-owned Simpy instead.

I'm not trying to be a contrary prick here!

I mean to echo Ian when he says "early days": the Open Science community is here to stay, and it's growing rapidly. I agree with you about the way science is structured so as to promote wall-building and secrecy, but I think we have an opportunity to make profound changes in that structure. And don't think you aren't already doing so: my own web-savvy, such as it is, derives largely from exposure to early efforts like Nodalpoint.

 
At March 12, 2008 8:56 AM, Blogger Neil said...

Bill, you are one of the wonderful exceptions to the rule :)

No, of course there are plenty of biologists using these services - otherwise they wouldn't exist. I must admit that some personal malaise is tainting my posts and comments just now. Maybe I consistently choose non-ideal (for me) working environments, but 8 years of feeling like no-one in your immediate vicinity knows or cares about the topics that drive you can become...depressing.

An alternative theory is that this is especially prevalent in Australian academic environments, but let's not go down that road...

 
At March 13, 2008 8:30 PM, Blogger McDawg said...

IMHO, one of the best comments (in part) came from Howard:-

"Don't confuse anonymity with pseudonymity. If you allow anonymous comments you'll get tons of spam, mostly people looking for a way to post an URL on the web with some text they want, so their Google Page Rank goes up. Letting people use pseudonyms allows them to build a reputation online without it necessarily affecting their real world reputation. And for those that don't care, they can just use their real names."

(Disclosure - I am a contributor to the JoVE blog)

 
At March 14, 2008 4:05 PM, Anonymous David Crotty said...

Thanks for the link, and I do agree that the lack of incentive is a real issue (among others) in the lack of comments left on papers. It's unclear how to build a reputation economy that will mean anything in the real world (jobs, promotions, grants). As I noted in my post, there's almost a bias against this sort of participation, as it means you're dedicating time and effort to something other than your actual research. For some reason making comments like this face to face or at a meeting is encouraged, but online, not so much. Perhaps it's a question of time commitment--go to one or two meetings a year and ask pithy questions and you'll be known. Leave two comments a year online and you don't really have enough reputation points built up. As a publisher, we're definitely open to suggestions here. Any way to open communication and help our readers interact and get more out of our publications is definitely encouraged.

 
At March 14, 2008 4:31 PM, Anonymous David Crotty said...

One other quick thought. The vast majority of journal articles are read as pdf's. Usually those are going to be downloaded and either printed or read off a screen at a later date and time. In order to comment, the reader would have to go back to the journal, find the article and leave their comment. That strikes me as a lot of hoops to jump through, and you'd really need to be motivated to leave a comment to bother.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


See all posts from: July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008