Predictable, Real-Time Communication for Wireless Networked Sensing and Control
Scientific Communication Before and After Networked Science
22
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION BEFORE AND AFTER NETWORKED SCIENCE John Carey, AHIP METRO Scientific, Technical and Medical Librarians SIG May 13, 2014
description
The appearance of the Philosophical Transactions in 1665 marked the emergence of scientific journals as the dominant mode for dissemination of research and discoveries. The journal system served numerous fundamental needs within the scientific community and encouraged a climate of increased sharing of knowledge. As the rhetoric of scientific discourse evolved over time, a highly stable format emerged to govern the research article as a genre. In the contemporary era of networked science, however, informal scientific communication is also growing in importance as researchers turn to online collaborative tools for even more rapid sharing of results and work in progress.
Transcript of Scientific Communication Before and After Networked Science
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION BEFORE AND AFTER NETWORKED SCIENCE
John Carey, AHIPMETRO Scientific, Technical and Medical Librarians SIGMay 13, 2014
Before and After. . . .
“To historians . . . there will be two eras of science: pre-network science, and networked science.”
--M. Nielsen
2
Pre-Network Science3
Rise of the scientific journal Scientific Method Growth of modern science Rhetoric of scientific discourse
Networked Science
“Open science”
“Open notebook science”
“E-Science”
4
Rise of the Journal
First issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1667
5
Secrecy vs Sharing
Disseminated via networking
Research mainly published in book form
Guarded environment (anagrams and ciphers)
Disseminated via publication
Rapid articles, not books
Patrons, govt subsidies that rewarded publication
Before Journals After Journals
6
The Gentleman Scientist7
Author-Centered Discourse
First person narrative
Elaborate politeness
May address misc subjects
Purely descriptive Chronological
order May name
witnesses
8
Epistolary Experimental Report
Functions of Journals
1. Building a knowledge base 2. Communicating information 3. Validating quality 4. Distributing rewards/recognition 5. Building community
9
Big Science10
Growth of Modern Science
Spread of scientific method, professionalized class of researchers
Government interest, especially post-WWII R&D in the USA: 1923, $15 million/year; 2005,
$132 billion/year* “Seismic” events:
End of cold war Advent of electronic communications Globalized business environment
Carol S. Wagner, The New Invisible College: Science for Development (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2008), p. 15.
11
Object-Centered Discourse12
Evolved from earlier “experimental reports” Theory – experiment – discussion
“Agentless”—emphasis on methodology, conduct of experiment
Standardization of parts—any competent observer can replicate
IMRaD Format13
Contemporary Science
More frequently interdisciplinary in nature—increased emphasis on collaboration (“team science”)
More data-intensive, large datasets Increasingly geographically distributed,
teams based on interests/expertise Communication times reduced,
discovery speeded up
14
New Tools, Same Functions
Formal: Books & journal articles (print, subscription-based)
Informal: letters, meetings, societies, etc.
Formal: journal articles (digital, often OA and CC)
Informal: Blogs, wikis, social media
Pre-Network Science Networked Science
15
16
Recognition and Reward
How to measure the scholarly impact of blogs, online slides, tweets, etc.?
(Altmetric; Impact Story)
17
A Genre Playing Catch-Up?
“Despite the much-discussed shift of scientific journals to digital form, virtually any article appearing in one of these journals would be comfortably familiar (as a literary genre) to a scientist from 1900.”
–Clifford Lynch
Clifford A. Lynch, “The Shape of the Scientific Article in the Developing Cyberinfrastructure,” CT Watch Quarterly 3, no. 3 (2007), p. 5.
18
The “Article of the Future”
Despite non-linear layout and interactive features, still retains underlying IMRaD structure
(Elsevier, Cell)
19
The Progress of Networked Science2010 Survey respondents:
Works in progress: 50% sharing with private network, 25% openly with research communityData: 40% sharing with private network, 20% openly with research communityVaries with: discipline, generation/career status
Research Information Network, “If You Build It, Will they Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0,” July, 2010. Accessed June 18, 2012, http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers
20
Challenges Real or Perceived 2010 Survey respondents:
Blogs, wikis, online notebooks ranked low in importanceOnline preprints average or high importanceNo bias against OAConcerns: peer review, quality assurance
Research Information Network, “If You Build It, Will they Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0,” July, 2010. Accessed June 18, 2012, http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers
21
Image Credits
Slide 2: © 2012, Princeton University Press. Slide 5: Portrait of Francis Bacon, by Frans Pourbus (1617), Palace
on the Water, Warsaw; Portrait of Josiah Meigs © University of Georgia Libraries
Slide 8: The Bancroft Library, © 2013 Regents of the University of California
Slide 10: Portfolio Piece 1, © 2012 Chris 5353, “Just another WordPress.com site,” http://chris5353.wordpress.com/
Slide 11: “Networked Science,” EMC+ © 2012, http://emcplus.emc.com/2012/03/networked-science.html
Based on:
Carey, J. (2013). Scientific communication before and after networked science. Information and Culture: A Journal of History 48(3), 344-367.
22
