Comments on: Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/ Sat, 17 May 2008 06:20:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Biologie et Web 2.0, pas encore ça… « The missing cluster http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-16296 Biologie et Web 2.0, pas encore ça… « The missing cluster Fri, 09 May 2008 11:33:26 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-16296 [...] qui déplore le manque d’intérêt des biologistes pour le Web 2.0, un constat basé sur une analyse approfondie de Bench Mark, le blog de l’éditeur de CSH protocols. Parmi les raisons invoquées, le manque de temps, le [...] […] qui déplore le manque d’intérêt des biologistes pour le Web 2.0, un constat basé sur une analyse approfondie de Bench Mark, le blog de l’éditeur de CSH protocols. Parmi les raisons invoquées, le manque de temps, le […]

]]> By: Why is Web 2.0 Failing in Biology » shantarohse.com http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-16105 Why is Web 2.0 Failing in Biology » shantarohse.com Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:39:25 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-16105 [...] A pessimist’s view of why scientists do not participate in social networking sites. According to an anonymous postdoc: “I can barely keep up iwth the literature in my field and with what my labmates are doing. Who has time to spend reading some grad student’s blog?” This entry was written by Shanta Rohse, posted on April 25th, 2008 at 9:38 pm, filed under Linking Thinking and tagged engaging with online learning. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Purposeful Networking [...] […] A pessimist’s view of why scientists do not participate in social networking sites. According to an anonymous postdoc: “I can barely keep up iwth the literature in my field and with what my labmates are doing. Who has time to spend reading some grad student’s blog?” This entry was written by Shanta Rohse, posted on April 25th, 2008 at 9:38 pm, filed under Linking Thinking and tagged engaging with online learning. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Purposeful Networking […]

]]> By: Discussing Science 2.0 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15816 Discussing Science 2.0 Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:44:05 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15816 [...] Society for Developmental Biology Meeting. It’s an updated version of an earlier talk posted here. It’s kind of a 180 degrees turn from the previous talk, in that the first one was delivered [...] […] Society for Developmental Biology Meeting. It’s an updated version of an earlier talk posted here. It’s kind of a 180 degrees turn from the previous talk, in that the first one was delivered […]

]]> By: Discussing Science 2.0 « A Man With A Ph.D. http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15815 Discussing Science 2.0 « A Man With A Ph.D. Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:50:37 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15815 [...] Society for Developmental Biology Meeting. It’s an updated version of an earlier talk posted here. It’s kind of a 180 degrees turn from the previous talk, in that the first one was delivered to [...] […] Society for Developmental Biology Meeting. It’s an updated version of an earlier talk posted here. It’s kind of a 180 degrees turn from the previous talk, in that the first one was delivered to […]

]]> By: myScience: “social software” for scientists « O’Really? at Duncan.Hull.name http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15801 myScience: “social software” for scientists « O’Really? at Duncan.Hull.name Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:04:28 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15801 [...] Soiland’s Fluffy Web 2.0 demo and an article by from David Crotty at Cold Spring Harbor: Why Web 2.0 is failing in biology. If there are any important science-oriented “social software” sites I missed, please [...] […] Soiland’s Fluffy Web 2.0 demo and an article by from David Crotty at Cold Spring Harbor: Why Web 2.0 is failing in biology. If there are any important science-oriented “social software” sites I missed, please […]

]]> By: Blogging is and will remain a fringe effect in science? http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15796 Blogging is and will remain a fringe effect in science? Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:15:18 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15796 [...] friend Sébastien Paquet got me upset. He sent me a link to a post by David Crotty. What David says is that Wikipedia and blogging, the whole Web 2.0 fad, [...] […] friend Sébastien Paquet got me upset. He sent me a link to a post by David Crotty. What David says is that Wikipedia and blogging, the whole Web 2.0 fad, […]

]]> By: Bumps in the road to Science 2.0 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15785 Bumps in the road to Science 2.0 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:08:58 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15785 [...] Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology [Via Bench Marks] Last week I gave a talk at the American Association of Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishing (AAP/PSP) meeting in Washington, DC. I was part of a panel discussion on “Innovative and Evolving Websites in STM Publishing” along with representatives from the New England Journal of Medicine, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the American Chemical Society. While the other talks were a bit more evangelical, or mostly presented a look at new technologies that had been incorporated into the societies’ own journals, I tried to be a bit more practical, taking more of a hard look at what’s currently being tried, whether it’s succeeding and the reasons behind that success/failure. I’m posting my talk below, in hopes of receiving further feedback. This talk was delivered to a room full of publishers, so it’s directed with that audience in mind. In a few months, I’m giving a similar talk to a meeting of scientists, the users of these sites rather than the creators. So I’d love to hear from users as to your thoughts on how Web 2.0 is serving your needs. [More] [...] […] Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology [Via Bench Marks] Last week I gave a talk at the American Association of Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishing (AAP/PSP) meeting in Washington, DC. I was part of a panel discussion on “Innovative and Evolving Websites in STM Publishing” along with representatives from the New England Journal of Medicine, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the American Chemical Society. While the other talks were a bit more evangelical, or mostly presented a look at new technologies that had been incorporated into the societies’ own journals, I tried to be a bit more practical, taking more of a hard look at what’s currently being tried, whether it’s succeeding and the reasons behind that success/failure. I’m posting my talk below, in hopes of receiving further feedback. This talk was delivered to a room full of publishers, so it’s directed with that audience in mind. In a few months, I’m giving a similar talk to a meeting of scientists, the users of these sites rather than the creators. So I’d love to hear from users as to your thoughts on how Web 2.0 is serving your needs. [More] […]

]]> By: Obstacles to social scholarship « Digital Scholarship in the Humanities http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15779 Obstacles to social scholarship « Digital Scholarship in the Humanities Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:42:32 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15779 [...] work of social scholarship take a lot of time—time that many busy academics don’t have. In a blog post on why Web 2.0 hasn’t been adopted in the biosciences, David Crotty, executive editor of the [...] […] work of social scholarship take a lot of time—time that many busy academics don’t have. In a blog post on why Web 2.0 hasn’t been adopted in the biosciences, David Crotty, executive editor of the […]

]]> By: Teaching undergraduates about peer review - how and why, and did I mention how? « info-fetishist http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15759 Teaching undergraduates about peer review - how and why, and did I mention how? « info-fetishist Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:33:55 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15759 [...] long post at the Bench Marks blog examines the question of Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology. It would make this too crazy long to engage with everything there today, but I do want to pull out [...] […] long post at the Bench Marks blog examines the question of Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology. It would make this too crazy long to engage with everything there today, but I do want to pull out […]

]]> By: kd http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15727 kd Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:54:56 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/#comment-15727 You Wrote: <blockquote> 1) Go to the computer, go to the Molecular Cloning website, Log-in, search for the protocol, print the protocol, do the experiment. 2) Grab the book off the shelf, do the experiment. </blockquote> ... <blockquote> 1) Go to the computer, go to the Connotea site, sign up for a Connotea account, log-in, add the link to the paper that's going to be discussed, add tags to the paper, e-mail those links out to members of the journal club. Members receive the e-mail, go to Connotea, create an account, log-in, go to the link they were sent, follow that link to the actual journal's website, download the pdf, read, discuss. 2) Go to the computer, download the pdf for the paper, e-mail it to the members of the group, read, discuss. </blockquote> To be fair, widespread adoption of OpenID will fix a lot of this problem and reduce this aspect of inertia. It's also astounding the number of people who ought to know better but don't use reference management software. You Wrote:

1) Go to the computer, go to the Molecular Cloning website, Log-in, search for the protocol, print the protocol, do the experiment.
2) Grab the book off the shelf, do the experiment.

…

1) Go to the computer, go to the Connotea site, sign up for a Connotea account, log-in, add the link to the paper that’s going to be discussed, add tags to the paper, e-mail those links out to members of the journal club. Members receive the e-mail, go to Connotea, create an account, log-in, go to the link they were sent, follow that link to the actual journal’s website, download the pdf, read, discuss.
2) Go to the computer, download the pdf for the paper, e-mail it to the members of the group, read, discuss.

To be fair, widespread adoption of OpenID will fix a lot of this problem and reduce this aspect of inertia.

It’s also astounding the number of people who ought to know better but don’t use reference management software.

]]>