CZ:Ref:DOI:10.1126/science.caredit.a1000036: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(started)
 
imported>Daniel Mietchen
(comment)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| url=http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_04_09/caredit.a1000036 | doi=10.1126/science.caredit.a1000036 }}
| url=http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_04_09/caredit.a1000036 | doi=10.1126/science.caredit.a1000036 }}
:Provides an introductory overview of [[Open notebook science]], focused on its practitioners. Covers the possibility of being [[scoop]]ed and exposes the benefits of [[open research]] in most of its variants: [[open science]], [[open data]], [[open access]], [[open source]].
:Provides an introductory overview of [[Open notebook science]], focused on its practitioners. Covers the possibility of being [[scoop]]ed and exposes the benefits of [[open research]] in most of its variants: [[open science]], [[open data]], [[open access]], [[open source]].
:A lively discussion of the article is [https://friendfeed.com/sciencecommons/1416691d/hi-everyone-today-i-m-here-discussing-my here], which broadens the subject to a comparison of [[open research]] and [[open journalism]].
:A lively discussion of the article is [http://ff.im/iM89S here], which broadens the subject to a comparison of [[open research]] and [[open journalism]]. Participants: The author, her editor, [[scientist]]s, [[educator]]s and [[patient advocate]]s.

Latest revision as of 04:52, 10 April 2010

Chelsea Wald (2010). "Scientists Embrace Openness". Science Careers (2010-04-09). DOI:10.1126/science.caredit.a1000036. Research Blogging[e]

Provides an introductory overview of Open notebook science, focused on its practitioners. Covers the possibility of being scooped and exposes the benefits of open research in most of its variants: open science, open data, open access, open source.
A lively discussion of the article is here, which broadens the subject to a comparison of open research and open journalism. Participants: The author, her editor, scientists, educators and patient advocates.