January 16, 2008 at 13:19Science 2.0 (Science 2.0) - a new tool or a big risk?
The World Wide Web is growing at an incredible pace, transforming human activities in all areas. Changes in business, methods of its conduct, methods of marketing and management.
The plane of personal communication of people is also changing: webdvanol technologies began to unite interest groups. Classmates, professionals in various fields, travelers, consumers of certain goods, services, just people eager for communication and new acquaintances - all these groups are moving and successfully developing in the “ network world of the second version ”, in which almost every day there are new ideas and trends regarding both the development of communication technologies and services, and their use for business purposes.
Fixation of these trends allows you to catch the spirit of the times, understand how at first glance disparate phenomena and facts are related and affect people's lives, and find new solutions for creating and promoting brands [1] .
These wonderful opportunities must come to science. To come for its development, public presentation and promotion of knowledge, without which the country simply risks being left without scientists [2] . In fact, they should become one of the main tools for the “rebranding” of science.
The need for science to master the modern communication space and “new trends” is long overdue. Researchers should get the full arsenal of social networking opportunities .
It is believed that traditional scientific publications act more as records in the cadastre of intellectual property, rather than as a way of communication. Thus, there is the problem of disseminating scientific information, the problem of researchers discussing their reports and publications.
In one of the great studies of communication in psychology, the American Psychological Association (APA) came up with a rather unexpected result.
It turns out that articles distributed through several thousand copies of the journal are read by only a few hundred subscribers [3] . And the social network of people of science is able to disseminate scientific information to any number of its participants constantly and accessible - 24 hours a day.
Today we can say that there is already a small but growing number of researchers using social networks, blocks, Wikis in their work. And although their efforts are scattered enough - this experience suggests that this kind of Science 2.0 is much more productive.
What is a social network in its current form, is unlikely to explain even the most intelligent sociologist. In this concept, sociological and technological features have long been mixed. From sociology, it took the idea of social coordination in a system of relationships between people. So, in a social network, firstly, there are direct and indirect connections between its elements, and secondly, there is no explicit hierarchy. Scientists amicably note that the participants in the social network are equivalent and united not only by the subject of common interest, but also by the connections between themselves [4]. “Science is developing not only because scientists make experiments, but also because they discuss these experiments,” explains Christopher Surridge, editor of the web-oriented journal Public Library of Science On-Line Edition ( PLoS ONE ).
The exchange of ideas and data acts as a powerful tool for finding truth and correcting errors, which, based on the accumulated experience of colleagues - other scientists and researchers, creates new knowledge. This communication allows you to extensively publish your research, while having access to materials on this topic, published earlier. It offers good benefits to society in the form of accelerated development of new goods and services for greater competitiveness of the national economy.
Of course, many scientists will be very skeptical of such openness and will not particularly rush to share their thoughts and studies. From this point of view, Science 2.0 seems dangerous: the use of blogs and social networks for serious work is fraught with theft of ideas, their publication and, what is most annoying, their implementation.
However, which side to look at: perhaps there will be not competition, but multilateral cooperation. The atmosphere of criticism of scientific postulates will not allow the publication of false research, the same texts will be at the peak of rating and citation, confirming the value of real knowledge. The contribution of each researcher in solving scientific problems will be clearly visible.
In addition, the interest of business representatives, potential customers is not to wait - this is also a platform for concluding research and development contracts. Practical example: the laboratory conducts research and develops new drugs by publishing its experiences in a scientific social network. Materials are freely indexed by search engines, and accordingly are easily accessible to their users who are interested in this particular topic. Surely people applying forces in one direction will want to work together. There will be an interest in obtaining results with shorter lead times and costs. One of the laboratories may offer to verify the calculations, another - to conduct part of the experiments on their equipment, there are opportunities for conducting "brain attacks". Thus, an effective network of collaborating laboratories appears.
In principle, scientists should find a mechanism and move to Science 2.0, it will be a completely natural process, it remains only a matter of time. In the end, since the days of Galileo and Newton , scientists have created their knowledge of the world from a "well of sources", the contribution of many researchers, and then improved them through open discussion.
Adopting the Web 2.0 Philosophywill require major changes in the culture of academic science. The real significance of the achievements of modern web technologies lies in their ability to focus on priority developments, openness of the community, and an objective assessment of published materials. The urgent task of modern scientists is not only to write journal publications, but also to facilitate scientific communication, which can greatly change due to the achievements of the Internet.
Radonett - http://radonett.habrahabr.ru/
1. AdWorker.ru: Trends-2008
2. Andrey Tikhonov. There will be science, there will be popularity
. 3. Informal groups and communication networks . (Transl. From English. Deryabin A.A., 1998).
4.Sergey Skripnikov. Connected by a network 2.0.
The materials of the site sciam.com were used in the preparation of the article .
The plane of personal communication of people is also changing: webdvanol technologies began to unite interest groups. Classmates, professionals in various fields, travelers, consumers of certain goods, services, just people eager for communication and new acquaintances - all these groups are moving and successfully developing in the “ network world of the second version ”, in which almost every day there are new ideas and trends regarding both the development of communication technologies and services, and their use for business purposes.
Fixation of these trends allows you to catch the spirit of the times, understand how at first glance disparate phenomena and facts are related and affect people's lives, and find new solutions for creating and promoting brands [1] .
These wonderful opportunities must come to science. To come for its development, public presentation and promotion of knowledge, without which the country simply risks being left without scientists [2] . In fact, they should become one of the main tools for the “rebranding” of science.
The need for science to master the modern communication space and “new trends” is long overdue. Researchers should get the full arsenal of social networking opportunities .
It is believed that traditional scientific publications act more as records in the cadastre of intellectual property, rather than as a way of communication. Thus, there is the problem of disseminating scientific information, the problem of researchers discussing their reports and publications.
In one of the great studies of communication in psychology, the American Psychological Association (APA) came up with a rather unexpected result.
It turns out that articles distributed through several thousand copies of the journal are read by only a few hundred subscribers [3] . And the social network of people of science is able to disseminate scientific information to any number of its participants constantly and accessible - 24 hours a day.
Today we can say that there is already a small but growing number of researchers using social networks, blocks, Wikis in their work. And although their efforts are scattered enough - this experience suggests that this kind of Science 2.0 is much more productive.
What is a social network in its current form, is unlikely to explain even the most intelligent sociologist. In this concept, sociological and technological features have long been mixed. From sociology, it took the idea of social coordination in a system of relationships between people. So, in a social network, firstly, there are direct and indirect connections between its elements, and secondly, there is no explicit hierarchy. Scientists amicably note that the participants in the social network are equivalent and united not only by the subject of common interest, but also by the connections between themselves [4]. “Science is developing not only because scientists make experiments, but also because they discuss these experiments,” explains Christopher Surridge, editor of the web-oriented journal Public Library of Science On-Line Edition ( PLoS ONE ).
The exchange of ideas and data acts as a powerful tool for finding truth and correcting errors, which, based on the accumulated experience of colleagues - other scientists and researchers, creates new knowledge. This communication allows you to extensively publish your research, while having access to materials on this topic, published earlier. It offers good benefits to society in the form of accelerated development of new goods and services for greater competitiveness of the national economy.
Of course, many scientists will be very skeptical of such openness and will not particularly rush to share their thoughts and studies. From this point of view, Science 2.0 seems dangerous: the use of blogs and social networks for serious work is fraught with theft of ideas, their publication and, what is most annoying, their implementation.
However, which side to look at: perhaps there will be not competition, but multilateral cooperation. The atmosphere of criticism of scientific postulates will not allow the publication of false research, the same texts will be at the peak of rating and citation, confirming the value of real knowledge. The contribution of each researcher in solving scientific problems will be clearly visible.
In addition, the interest of business representatives, potential customers is not to wait - this is also a platform for concluding research and development contracts. Practical example: the laboratory conducts research and develops new drugs by publishing its experiences in a scientific social network. Materials are freely indexed by search engines, and accordingly are easily accessible to their users who are interested in this particular topic. Surely people applying forces in one direction will want to work together. There will be an interest in obtaining results with shorter lead times and costs. One of the laboratories may offer to verify the calculations, another - to conduct part of the experiments on their equipment, there are opportunities for conducting "brain attacks". Thus, an effective network of collaborating laboratories appears.
In principle, scientists should find a mechanism and move to Science 2.0, it will be a completely natural process, it remains only a matter of time. In the end, since the days of Galileo and Newton , scientists have created their knowledge of the world from a "well of sources", the contribution of many researchers, and then improved them through open discussion.
Adopting the Web 2.0 Philosophywill require major changes in the culture of academic science. The real significance of the achievements of modern web technologies lies in their ability to focus on priority developments, openness of the community, and an objective assessment of published materials. The urgent task of modern scientists is not only to write journal publications, but also to facilitate scientific communication, which can greatly change due to the achievements of the Internet.
Radonett - http://radonett.habrahabr.ru/
1. AdWorker.ru: Trends-2008
2. Andrey Tikhonov. There will be science, there will be popularity
. 3. Informal groups and communication networks . (Transl. From English. Deryabin A.A., 1998).
4.Sergey Skripnikov. Connected by a network 2.0.
The materials of the site sciam.com were used in the preparation of the article .