Collection Number C18005
Collection Date -
Collection Type Conference/School

Scientific inquiry in the 21st century is beset with inefficiencies: a flood of papers not read theories not tested and experiments not repeated; a narrow research agenda driven by a handful of high-impact journals; a publishing industry that turns public funding into private profit; the exclusion of many scientists particularly in developing countries from cutting-edge research; and countless projects that are not completed for lack of skilled collaborators. These are all symptoms of a major communication bottleneck within the scientific community; the channels we rely on to share our ideas and findings especially peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings are inadequate to the scale and scope of modern science. The practice of open research doing science on a public platform that facilitates collaboration feedback and the spread of ideas addresses these concerns. Open-source science lowers barriers to entry catalyzing new discoveries. It fosters the real-time sharing of ideas across the globe favoring cooperative endeavor and complementarity of thought rather than wasteful competition. It reduces the influence of publishing monopolies enabling a new credit attribution model based on contributions made rather than references accrued. Overall it democratizes science while creating a new standard of prestige: quality of work instead of quantity of output. This workshop will bring together a diverse group of researchers from fields as diverse as physics biology computer science and sociology committed to open-source science. Together we will review the lessons learnt from various pioneering initiatives such as the Polymath project and Data for Democracy. We will discuss the opportunity to build a new tool similar to the software development platform GitHub to enable online collaborative science. We will consider the challenges associated with the adoption of such a tool by our peers and discuss ways to overcome them. Finally we will sketch a roadmap for the actual development of that tool.

Data Mists, Blockchain Republics, and the Moon Shot

Simon DeDeo Indiana University
To do things together it is not enough to know. We must know what others know, and know that they know we know it, a phenomenon known as Common Knowledge. From the Royal Society to the Science and Nature super-journals, scientists have found ways—however flawed—to achieve it. I’ll introduce the concept of the Artifact, an abstraction that captures the essence of these institutions, and that may help us, in the 21st Century, to go beyond them. And I’ll propose, playfully, a few endeavors that may help us achieve it: Data Mists, Blockchain Republics, and the Moon Shot.

What’s not to like? Open science will fail unless it takes the costs seriously

Rosie Redfield University of British Columbia (UBC)
The Open Science movement focuses on the broad benefits to the scientific enterprise, but its success will depend on the actions of individual scientists. Unless the short-term benefits to the researcher outweigh the costs, only the most altruistic will open up their research efforts to the world. Arguments based on hypothetical future benefits don’t carry much weight, and calls for better tools appear to be mainly driven by tool-designers, not potential users.

Open is the New Black: Really?

Nicolas Erdody Open Parellel Ltd.
Through the last 20-25 years “we won” many battles in the evolution of FLOSS into mainstream. No one can ignore today the role of open source in software, hardware, high-tech and even business development. However everything seems to be open today: Open Data, Open Innovation, Open Government, Open Research...what do we mean by that? Has “open” the same meaning in all of them? How reliable are the results from such openness?