http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:27:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/comment-page-1/#comment-16976 David Crotty Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:55:50 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/#comment-16976 We're certainly open to quality protocols, though the method through which they're generated is of less concern than the usefulness of the assay described. We'd probably still run anything through our usual quality control mechanisms like peer review, but if you're interested in submitting, please do drop me an e-mail with details. We’re certainly open to quality protocols, though the method through which they’re generated is of less concern than the usefulness of the assay described. We’d probably still run anything through our usual quality control mechanisms like peer review, but if you’re interested in submitting, please do drop me an e-mail with details.

]]> http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/comment-page-1/#comment-16974 Christopher Dyer Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:25:14 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/#comment-16974 Dear David, We're doing some interesting things with Web 2.0 tools on Sci-Mate: http://www.sci-mate.org/wiki/index.php/About_Sci-Mate It would be great to have a journal like yours interested in publishing a protocol that was prepared and peer-reviewed within a Web 2.0 environment? Dear David,
We’re doing some interesting things with Web 2.0 tools on Sci-Mate:
http://www.sci-mate.org/wiki/index.php/About_Sci-Mate
It would be great to have a journal like yours interested in publishing a protocol that was prepared and peer-reviewed within a Web 2.0 environment?

]]> http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/comment-page-1/#comment-16866 David Crotty Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:23:25 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/#comment-16866 You'll note that the phrase was used in the Science article in a completely different context from what you've mentioned in your comment, hence it was new at least to a very different field at the time. And if you follow my links, you'll see use of the term dating to 2006 and earlier. You’ll note that the phrase was used in the Science article in a completely different context from what you’ve mentioned in your comment, hence it was new at least to a very different field at the time. And if you follow my links, you’ll see use of the term dating to 2006 and earlier.

]]> http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/comment-page-1/#comment-16865 Rob Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:17:09 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/#comment-16865 March 2008? We were using wikis, labroots, and jumper last year. hardly seems to be a new concept... yet coining a phrase is everything. March 2008? We were using wikis, labroots, and jumper last year. hardly seems to be a new concept… yet coining a phrase is everything.

]]> http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/comment-page-1/#comment-15696 Science 2.0 « O’Really? at Duncan.Hull.name Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:11:43 +0000 http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/03/10/science-20/#comment-15696 [...] in some lashings of your favourite Science and you’ve got Science 2.0. See also Science -2.0, Science 2.0? and Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology for where and why Science 2.0 might [...] [...] in some lashings of your favourite Science and you’ve got Science 2.0. See also Science -2.0, Science 2.0? and Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology for where and why Science 2.0 might [...]

]]>