CyberSightings

In the Spotlight

The emergence of Web 2.0 has resulted in a number of new communication and participation tools. Wiki, rss, weblogs, and social networks have turned the Internet into a writable platform, where the user acts as a “prosumer,” that is, a consumer and a producer of information. For many, however, social computing is not just a new phase in the evolution of ICT but a new model of generation and diffusion of knowledge, which has a potentially transformative impact on social and cultural processes. The rapid and pervasive diffusion of social computing requires organizations and institutions to face new challenges and rethink their modus operandi. Science, as any other cultural enterprise, is likely to be deeply affected by the social media revolution. This is not surprising, considering the close relationship that has always existed between the development of science and the development of the Internet. When Tim Berners Lee, a researcher of the European Particle Physics Lab (CERN) in Switzerland, created the networked hypertext, his main goal was to develop an effective solution to facilitate communication among members of the high-energy physics community who were located in several countries. In his original proposal to CERN's management written in March 1989, Berners-Lee suggested “the integration of a hypertext system with existing data, so as to provide a universal system, and to achieve critical usefulness at an early stage” (www.nic.funet.fi/index/FUNET/history/internet/w3c/proposal.html/). Since those early days of its development, of course, the Web has changed enormously, offering researchers opportunities that are probably beyond the imagination of its inventor. Today's social media tools and services have the potential to transform radically the way science is conducted, financed, and communicated. This “Science 2.0 revolution” unfolds along three major directions: open collaboration, open data, and open publication/access.

Open collaboration refers to the possibility of using the tools provided by social networks, wikis, and forums to share information and know-how. This strategy allows researchers to exchange protocols, techniques, experimental procedures, and find solutions to common issues. Open collaboration networks provide a powerful collaboration and learning environment, where experts from different disciplines can join forces to develop new projects, write grant proposals, plan studies, and so on.

The second trend, open data, concerns the publication and reuse of scientific data such as maps, genomes, chemical compounds, medical, and so on, without price or permission. Although the concept is not new, it has gained momentum in recent years thanks to the raising popularity of social computing. Advocates of this approach believe that the public availability and reusability of research data not only reduce wasteful duplication of effort, but also permit faster progress in science, since different teams can use the same data to test a variety of hypotheses. Recently, prominent exponents of the open data movement have authored a set of principles—the “Panton Principles”—aimed at articulating a view of what best practice should be with respect to data publication for science (http://pantonprinciples.org/). A key goal of these principles is the elimination of uncertainty for researchers who wish to use the data about what exactly they are allowed to do with it.

The third emerging trend in Science 2.0, open access, concerns the provision of unrestricted online access to articles published in scholarly journals. Supporters of open access argue that this approach brings researchers increased visibility, usage, and impact for their work. On the other hand, critics of OA do not believe that this model is economically sustainable and express concerns about quality control. Another criticism is that since some OA journals require payment on behalf of the author, this could generate conflicts of interest and have a negative impact on the perceived neutrality of peer review, as there would be a financial incentive for journals to publish more articles.

Wikis, blogs, and the other Web 2.0 technologies are paving the way towards providing new means of collaboration, education, and communication for researchers. However, the successful adoption of this approach depends heavily on the ability to create a deep understanding of scientists' current practices, needs, and expectations. For those who want to explore in more depth the potential of social media for research, this issue's Internet Corner features a list of interesting Science 2.0 resources and services.

Internet Corner

Upcoming Meetings