Heute erreichte mich folgende Frage:
... ich habe jetzt schon öfters von Plattformen im Internet gehört, auf denen man gemeinsam arbeiten kann. An Papers und so.
Ich frage mich: bringt das was? Und wie genau sieht das aus? Können andere da auch meine Ideen benutzen, wenn sie doch für alle zugänglich sind?
Hat jemand von euch schon Erfahrungen damit gesammelt?
Oder kann ein paar Beispiele geben?
Ich habe meine Diplomarbeit in Word geschrieben. Das ging ganz gut, obwohl mich der Formeleditor genervt hat, weshalb ich für spätere Arbeiten auf TeX umgestiegen bin (ein Blick in den Appendix genügt, um das zu verstehen).
Papers habe ich bisher nur kollaborativ veröffentlicht. Wenn wirklich mehrere Ko-Autoren intensiv am Text arbeiten wollen (ist nicht immer der Fall - manche beschränken sich darauf, zu den Experimenten selbst oder zu deren Auswertung beizutragen), hat es sich dabei als sehr unpraktisch erwiesen, ständig Dateien hin- und herzuschicken (egal, ob .doc, .odt oder .tex, wobei letztere durch weitgehende Plattformunabhängigkeit etwas im Vorteil sind).
Diese Ansicht teilen eigentlich alle, mit denen ich mich darüber ausgetauscht habe. Also wäre die logische Schlussfolgerung, dann mal Google docs & Co. auszuprobieren, doch dem steht ein wichtiges Problem im Wege - die Integration mit bibliographischer Software (klassicherweise Endnote oder BibTeX) ist nicht gegeben, während stand-alone Word (or Open Office, or TeX) sie schon seit langem bieten. Bisher hat praktisch jeder Wissenschaftler seine Literatursammlung irgendwie "selbst gebastelt", und speziell die Varianten, die auf Papier basieren (Ordner, Karteikästen etc.) sind praktisch nicht mit vertretbarem Aufwand umstellbar (ich hab meine entsprechende Sammlung dann irgendwann dem Altpapier übergeben und archiviere seit Beginn der Diss nach Möglichkeit nur elektronisch - geht aber auch heute noch nicht immer).
Ein wichtiger Wendepunkt in der Geschichte war die Einführung von URI (am bekanntesten ist DOI, aber es gibt auch andere, z.B. SRef). Das ermöglichte nämlich die Entstehung bzw. Entwicklung von Plattformen, die Metadaten zu einer Literaturquelle aggregieren (Überblick; stark im Kommen ist der Verbund aus Mendeley und CiteULIke). Diese Literaturplattformen ermöglichen den Import/Export von Metadaten (oft auch noch mehr, zum Beispiel PDF oder gar Supplementary materials), und so handhabe ich es mittlerweile so, dass ich in meiner Literaturverwaltung (ich nutze gegenwärtig primär Papers) alle Artikel (nach erfolgreicher Assoziation mit den Metadaten, was meist automatisch funktionert) mit nem manuskriptspezifischen tag versehe. Wenn ich dann Papers nach dem tag durchsuche, kann ich die Metadaten all dieser Referenzen in eine BibTeX-Datei (oder RIF, or whatever) exportieren und in TeX einbinden. Kompilieren (dabei sucht sich TeX die Referenzen raus, die ich auch tatsächlich zitiert habe), fertig. Alles andere, was mit dem Manuskript zu tun hat, kann über die von Dir angesprochenen Online-Plattformen erfolgen.
Letzten Freitag habe ich die Revision eines so entstandenen Manuskripts an die Gutachter geschickt (über ein Online-Interface natürlich, per Email macht das heut kaum noch ein Journal), und anstelle der früher üblichen Datei mit "allen Änderungen während der Überarbeitungsphase" brauchte ich nur einen Link einzufügen.
Einen ersten Einblick in die Thematik "Forschen und Lehren in der Öffentlichkeit" vermittelt dieser Vortrag (meine Kommentare). Für alle wissenschaftlichen Aktivitäten gibt es mittlerweile Beispiele einer solch offenen Vorgehensweise, sogar für das Schreiben von Fördermittelanträgen, auch in Deutschland.
Ideenklau kommt immer wieder als Argument gegen "Open Science" auf und wird hier kurz sowie hier etwas ausführlicher besprochen (hier auch). Fazit: Theoretisch denkbar, aber unpraktisch - wenn nämlich meine Ideen oder Messdaten (or what have you) öffentlich sind, dann auch der Zeitpunkt, an dem ich sie online gestellt habe - und den kann ich ggf. dem Ideenklauer unter die Nase halten, wenn ich das, was er damit gemacht hat, für problematisch halte. Allerdings wird momentan nur ein kleiner Teil aller wissenschaftlichen Ideen umgesetzt, von den Umsetzungen wiederum nur ein gewisser (wohl auch kleiner) Teil veröffentlicht, von der publizierten Literatur nur ein kleiner Teil zitiert (mit starken Unterschieden zwischen Fächern) und schließlich nur ein kleiner Teil des in der Literatur vorhandenen Wissens weiterentwickelt.
Da erscheint es mir lohnenswert, über Mechanismen nachzudenken, die das System etwas effizienter machen könnten: Wenn Wissenschaft per default öffentlich wäre (d.h. von der Ideenphase an, nicht erst nach der formalen Veröffentlichung), würden Wissenschaftler ihre Lebenszeit und die Gesellschaft als Ganzes eine Menge Ressourcen effizienter einsetzen können, als das in dem heutigen System der Fall ist.
Watch this video and then lean back and think how it may change the way you share scientific informationSun, 31/05/2009 - 12:13am | by daniel
Google plan to release a new tool later this year that allows for interactive sharing of information in a way similar to microblogging services, just more deeply thought through: Google wave. And it (or at least its "lion share", as they put it) is going to be open source, so that software developers can add to or build upon it.
"Fantasy Science Funding" is an online game played by people with concrete ideas about science funding who are not currently in a position to put these ideas into practice. There are five rules to the game: 1 - choose a funding body whose funds you are managing in your fantasy, 2 - imagine how their funds could be distributed to the benefit of science, 3 - choose areas of science to be "fired" (i.e. whose funding should be decreased with respect to present state), 4 - choose areas of science to be "hired" (where funding should be increased with respect to now), 5 - blog about it.
Previous shindings that I am aware of were hosted by Duncan Hull, Björn Brembs and Cameron Neylon.
After having written my diploma thesis in Microsoft Word, I switched to LaTeX for my PhD, and I never wanted to switch back since. However, PLoS ONE - an Open Access journal that abandoned the traditional discipline-specific scope, which made it a potentially interesting publication venue for research on topics or methods that are hard to classify in traditional discipline-centred terms - didn't accept TeX-based documents, even though this had been pointed out soon after the launch of the journal in 2006. Now they seem to have solved their technical problems and, starting a few days ago, do indeed accept LaTeX documents. I hope that this significant invitation to what they call "math heavy communities" is going to be accompanied by an overhaul of the scheme they use to categorize their articles, in which "physics" still stands at the same hierarchical level as "ophthalmology", even though the system is more fine-grained internally.
Just imagine if all authors currently writing up manuscripts about a subject were instead to coordinate their efforts by collaborating on a single but detailed and balanced citable reference in which the topic would be described in and linked to all relevant contexts, updated as new research results pass peer review.
Since the advent of printed scholarly periodicals in the late Middle Ages, context in scientific communication has mainly been established by providing each of these publication venues (now collectively referred to as journals) with a scope, typically in terms of topics or methods covered, or with respect to a perceived threshold in newsworthiness.
Besides establishing context, the scope also defined the audience -- and thus indirectly the number of printed copies, their pricing and their distribution amongst individuals and institutions -- as well as criteria to be met by manuscripts in order to be considered for publication. Given the scope of a particular journal, consequently, knowledge about specialist terms (which may describe completely non-congruent concepts in different fields), methodologies, notations, mainstream opinions, trends or major controversies could reasonably be expected to be widespread amongst the audience, which reduced the need of redundantly repeating the same things all over and again. Interestingly, redundancy is still quite visible nonentheless, especially in the introductory, methods and discussion sections and the abstracts, often in a way characteristic of the authors (such that services like eTBLAST and JANE can make qualified guesses on authors of a particular piece of text, with good results if some of the authors have a lot of papers in the respective database, mainly PubMed, and if they have not changed their individual research scope too often in between).
Of course, there would be side effects: A manuscript well-adapted to the scope of one particular journal is often not very intelligible to someone outside its intended audience, which hampers cross-fertilization with other research fields (we will get back to this below). When using paper as the sole medium of communication, there is not much to be done about this limitation, and we got so used to it that few indeed would perceive it as a limitation at all. However, the times when paper alone reigned over scholarly communication have certainly passed.
So, in principle, the online version of a manuscript could link directly to any appropriate source of information (even blogs, for that matter, if no better source is available or accessible; see here for an example) but in current practice, linking is usually achieved paper-style, i.e. indirectly, via a list of references which itself is often not linked to online versions (let alone openly accessible ones) of the references in question, even though Uniform Resource Identifiers like DOI and SRef have been around for about a decade now, and International Standard Book Numbers longer still.
The above-mentioned hampered cross-field fertilization is crucial with respect to interdisciplinary research projects, digital libraries and multi-journal (or indeed cross-disciplinary) bibliographic search engines (e.g. Google Scholar), since these dramatically increased the likelihood of, say, a biologist stumbling upon a not primarily biological source relevant to her research (think shape quantification or growth curves, for instance). What options do we have to integrate these cross-disciplinary hidden treasures with the traditional intra-disciplinary background knowledge?
Interestingly, lack of context is also a consistent feature of most "Facebooks for scientists" (including ways.org which hosts this blog) - in fact, the whole set of scholarly pages on the www is the appropriate network for researchers but so far it is not optimally connected, particularly because formal scholarly communication has not yet fully hatched from the structures it had during the paper-based era (see also this nice overview of the current situation). Just imagine if all authors currently writing up manuscripts about a subject were instead to coordinate their efforts by collaborating on a single but detailed and balanced citable reference in which the topic would be described in and linked to all relevant contexts, updated as new research results pass peer review. Of course, this would shift the focus away from periodicals (and, in passing, render things like a journal's scope and Impact Factor superfluous), which is likely to meet resistance from the publishing establishment.
Groupware comes to mind in this regard, and wikis in particular: They allow to aggregate and inter-link diverse sets of knowledge in an online-accessible manner, basically for free. The by now classical example are the Wikipedias, and one scientific journal - RNA biology - has already announced that it requires an introductory Wikipedia article for papers it is to publish on RNA families, an idea that recently spurred an ongoing debate on the merits of such an initiative and of doing it with Wikipedia.
An investigation (video lecture by Bill Wedemeyer here, my brief annotation here) of the quality of a set of science articles in the English Wikipedia is currently being written up for classical paper-style publication but the preliminary results indicate that "[t]here is a subset of reliably helpful science articles on the English Wikipedia for outreach, teacher training, and general science education" (slide shown at 29:35min in the video). However, the distribution of the set of articles was skewed towards the Good Article and Featured Article classes which constituted only 2% of the English Wikipedia at the time of investigation, and it did not include articles in the humanities (they come next).
Furthermore, the larger Wikipedias have a serious problem with vandalism: take an article of your choice and look in its history page for reverts - most of them will be about changes like this or worse. This is less of an issue with more popular topics for which large numbers of volunteers may be available to correct spammy entries but it is probably fair to assume that most researchers value their time too much to spend it on repeatedly correcting such information if it had already been correctly entered once. Other problems with covering scientific topics at Wikipedia include the notability criteria which have to be fulfilled to avoid an article being deleted, and the rejection of "original research" in the sense of not having been peer reviewed before publication. Peer review is indeed an important aspect of scholarly communication, as it paves the way towards the reproducibility that forms one of the foundations of modern science. Yet I know of no compelling reason to believe that it works better before than after publication (doing it beforehand was just a practical decision in times when journal space was measured in paper pages).
Fortunately, the Wikipedias are not the only wikis around, and amongst the more scholarly inclined alternatives, there are even a number of wiki-based journals, though usually with a very narrow scope and/ or a low number of articles. On the contrary, Citizendium, Scholarpedia (which has classical peer review and an ISSN and may thus be counted as a wiki journal, too), OpenWetWare and the Wikiversities are cross-disciplinary and structured (as well as sized, for the moment) such that vandalism and notability are not really a problem (with minor exceptions, real names are required at the first three, and anybody can write about anything, particularly their fields of expertise). None of these is even close to providing the vast amount of context existing in the English Wikipedia but they might perhaps if the latter were broken down to scholarly useful stuff, as discussed above. Out of these four wikis, only OpenWetWare and some Wikiversities (here counted as one) currently allow for original research to be published on their site - in the case of OpenWetWare, this is indeed the main purpose.
Further, a number of more specialized scholarly wikis exist (e.g. WikiGenes, the Encyclopedia of Earth, the Encyclopedia of the Cosmos, or the Dispersive PDE Wiki) which can teach us about the usefulness of wikis within specific academic fields. I will not dwell on details here but instead list a number of features I deem desirable for future scholarly wikis, derived from experience with existing ones. These include, in no particular order:
- search engines that integrate or otherwise compare favourably with major scholarly search engines on the web (the already mentioned Google Scholar and PubMed as well as, say, the BioText Search Engine that searches Open Access text and images)
- pan-disciplinary scope, with consistent disambiguation of specialist terms (mainly but not fully achieved at Citizendium)
- some system of peer review (basically, any wiki allows to leave comments, annotations or formal reviews on talk pages of users or articles but these ratings should be featured more prominently; templates like those visualizing article status at Citizendium may help with that); this may be as simple as disallowing individuals to add information to Citizendium when the only available support is their own non-reviewed research published at OpenWetWare - the real name policy will minimize misuse
- the uploadability of all kinds of media (including videos, which are blocked at the Wikipedias but allowed at Citizendium, for instance, and the scope of the Journal of Visualized Experiments) that traditionally (if you can call a habit that barely is a decade old a tradition already) went along with paper-based publications as "supporting online information" (which would be easily integrated in an all-online article with no sharp space limitations)
- stable versions for contents that has undergone peer review (like the Approved Articles at Citizendium), along with draft versions for anything else (including improvements to and updates of previous stable versions); like any non-protected page at the Wikipedias, these draft versions can serve as a playground, though a real-name policy would probably make it a more educational one
- a separate namespace for references (already in use at the Dispersive PDE Wiki and the French Wikipedia, in test at Citizendium); as a side line, this would open up ways for new citation metrics, via the What links here function
- attributability of contributions (automatically realized, though not in the traditional scholarly way, in any wiki with a real name policy like that at Citizendium, via the User contributions function; special arrangements exist at Scholarpedia and WikiGenes; OpenWetWare does allow nicknames but real names prevail; the Wikiversities have basically the same user name policy as the Wikipedias)
- easy download of selected sets of pages for local archiving by individual researchers
- licenses that allow unrestricted reuse and derivative work if the original source is properly acknowledged (typically CC-by-SA or the older GFDL, both of which are hopefully going to be compatible soon)
- resource-effective design (see also discussions on the energy use of the internet and individual websites)
- integration with the non-scholarly world (certainly achieved in the Wikipedias and Citizendium), particularly with students (cf. the Eduzendium initiative at Citizendium) and non-English contents
- automation of the formatting, as already common in non-wiki environments, e.g. with LaTeX templates (none of the wikis I know comes close to that, albeit templates are heavily used at the various Wikipedias and, to a lesser extent but in a more consistent manner, at Citizendium; they seem to be rather rarely used on smaller or more specialized wikis); the same applies to references, though automated wikificationhas already progressed considerably here, despite the lack of wiki export functions at publisher's sites (or of suitable XML-to-wiki converters for those who provide XML)
- The article's main page is a stable version, approved by an author with expertise in that field
- Next comes the Talk tab that leads to the discussion page, as per default in any wiki
- the Draft tab leads to the editable version (this only applies for articles that have already been approved; in others, the main page is editable)
- the Related Articles tab roughly corresponds to "see also" in the Wikipedias but is more usefully structured for navigation and somewhat replaces the categories which are heavily used in Wikipedia but only to a limited extent at Citizendium
- there are further subpages: Bibliography for further reading, External Links, Gallery, Video and so on
It is interesting to see that these individual subpages largely complement existing social networking tools and have thus the potential to replace them (or to be replaced by them), at least for scholarly purposes:
- the Bibliography subpage is a context-based alternative to CiteULike, Zotero, BibSonomy and other reference managers, possibly in conjunction with Open Library, scholarly search engines and tools like Scribd or Papers. One problem wikis cannot solve is that of access to paper-based research publications but due to the current spread of Green and Gold Open Access initiatives, this is likely to change in the next few years anyway.
- the External Links subpage is a context-based alternative to conventional social bookmarking as known from delicious and simpy
- Additional subpages could be tailored to meet the needs of individual categories of articles (e.g. properties of chemical elements, genes, stellar constellations etc.) or more general scholarly needs (e.g. peer review, slides, code, protocols, or bot-generated transcripts from video lectures)
Besides, User pages may provide context-based alternatives to individual pages at different networking sites, and possibly even to blogs like this one, while the Recent changes page could turn into an alternative for friendfeed, with items on your Watchlist (if you are logged in) equivalent to friendfeed rooms or personal feeds you are subscribed to. For the record, this social networking component of Citizendium has already been discussed two years ago, prior to its official launch and thus at a time when many of its current structures and their implications were not known yet.
Finally, and importantly, the easy availability of context (once the system would be reasonably well adopted by scholarly communities, and the encyclopedic corpus thus reasonably complete) would make it more easy to guide expert attention and thus to identify obvious gaps in current knowledge (e.g. by means of an expert evaluation of items listed on the Most Wanted page), and science funders could then issue a call for research proposals on such topics (e.g. via a Calls subpage, InnoCentive, Mechanical Turk or by more traditional means). And while we are at it, I think science funders, job committees and review panels would profit from familiarizing themselves with the workings of wikis, particularly the aspects relevant to reliability, attribution, and outreach (your organization, company or university probably has a page on Wikipedia - take a look at it, along with its history and talk pages, and you will almost certainly find something to improve).
To sum up, the still fledgling Citizendium currently seems to be the closest match for a cross-disciplinary scholarly wiki anchored in the real world, and independent of whether it will allow original research to be posted in the future or not, this essential function in scholarly communication can be fulfilled by OpenWetWare (indeed, a similar separation of powers is one of the most healthy elements of most democracies). If widely adopted, this would entail a major shift in the way research is being done and communicated, towards what has come to be known as open science. As a side effect, commercial publishers would have to look for new things to publish, other than original research (non-commercial publishers like scholarly societies may, after the usual period of resistance, see more advantages than disadvantages in the groupware model). Reviews at different levels of expertise may be one option, and tutorials or other learning tools another but all this could be done via some intelligently structured set of groupware, too, depending on the incentives involved (in fact, such reviews are the scope of Scholarpedia). A side effect for researchers would be that they could use the author fees, page and figure charges and all the other money currently required to publish a paper for other purposes.
Of course, there are potential problems with such an enormous concentration of knowledge (e.g. for attacks and misuse, especially in relation to an international author identification that is currently being discussed). The obvious solutions are appropriate mirroring and otherwise transparency. Similar concerns would apply to a journal like PLoS ONE that does not have a scope in the traditional paper-limited sense mentioned above, yet two years after launch, it is doing pretty well, and my guess is that if it were to adopt a symbiosis with a suitable wiki in a way similar to the RNA Biology initiative, it may even do better.
As a next step, I wish to go into more detail concerning the relative merits of paper-based and wiki-based scholarly communication. So I started a Wikiversity page on wikis in scholarly communication and invite you to add to it (I chose Wikiversity such that those who object to real name policies may make their voice heard, too, and I think I can deal with spam should it arise there). This overview may also help in working out an ecological footprint scheme applicable to research, as described previously.
I dedicate this post to my granny who passed away last week.
Below is my quick and dirty list of notes taken during Bill Wedemeyer's talk
"Quality of the science articles on the English Wikipedia", given at Wikimania 2008. Times are approximate, in minutes.
3:00 Dr Ahmed Darwish - need for free and reliable information
3:35 Necessity to train teachers
3:50 Training of students by involving them in scientific writing
5:00 Training of future scientists
5:49 Critiques of WP
7:04 dataset description
8:15 review of "good" WP articles by experts
12:12 WP does cover a broad range of scientific topics
13:45 ca. 11% of science articles are "developed"
14:40 reference to Tim Vickers on peer reviewed stuff
15:45 It should not be a goal for WP to write scientific reviews. Rather, WP should try to make such reviews accessible to the public.
16:00 Tim Vickers edits under his own name and in his area of expertise
16:20 limitations of the media (size limits); does not mention video embedding
16:45 participation/motivation of experts; incl. science funding bodies
18:20 The time to recruit experts is not at the beginning but towards the end, about Featured Article
20:00 WP's authority derives from good referencing
22:00 WP has a method to provide authority to claims ("reliable authoritativeness")
23:00 quality of coverage by WP; weighted selection of mainly Good & Featrured Articles
23:50 only 2% of WP are GA/FA but these are generally OK for outreach and student education
29:30 Conclusions (invite evaluations by independent people)
30:20 Future work
34:00 In what way is writing worse in WP than in EB
35:00 Automate the manual of style!
36:50 Student assignments: Read a WP article, say what is good or bad, and fix it
39:30 How practical is it to invite external reviews?
43:00 Potential dangers of contributing to WP, particularly for a postdoc
44:36 "I personally believe that any scientific study that is published [[...]] must give its data away for free. That's the principle of science that you cannot keep data for yourself. [[..]] So I am completely committed [[to releasing the data]] (if I get published)."
45:15 I will try Nature first. I could also appeal to Science--> why not some OA journal?
46:30 What is the value being added by WP? Don't (just) mirror existing databases!
This is what has recently been discussed in the science 2.0 room at friendfeed. Feedback welcome!
This video released by Creative Commons explains how you can contribute to a global cultural heritage and at the same time exercise copyrights to have a say on how your contributions live on when taken up by others.
This post is meant as a contribution to Open Access Day (OA day) which strives to raise awareness - amongst researchers, research funders, academic publishers, students, politicians and the public - of the importance of Open Access (to literature containing peer-reviewed results of scientific investigations, that is) for our global society.
One way to do this is to have people like you blog in synchronization, i.e. on four questions during OA day. To give you some inspiration on the topic, you may wish to take a look at the first such synch-blogging entry, which came from Neil Saunders, based at the University of Queensland, Australia.
I will follow Neil's formatting to address the four questions:
- Why does Open Access matter to you?
- How did you first become aware of it?
- Why should scientific and medical research be an open-access resource for the world?
- What do you do to support Open Access, and what can others do?
OA, for me, marks a turning point within the scientific cycle, i.e. the iterative process which leads (if sufficiently funded) from a research question or idea to a hypothesis or new method that can be tested and, ultimately, to the results of those tests which then have to be communicated. This communication step is crucial, as it adds to our global knowledge foundation (often described, following Newton, as "the shoulders of giants") for new research questions or ideas that may eventually lead to things like "innovation", "insight" and "progress". If innovators-to-be, however, do not have access to the findings of their forebears (which may indeed be contemporaries), they will have to spend a lot of their time and resources by (re)inventing some aspects of the giants' shoulders before starting to work on their innovations in the first place. Open Access is a movement to lift those access barriers, and it is not only useful to researchers but it can also, for instance, help patients and their relatives to gather first-hand expert information on their specific health conditions, and it can help to inform public debates about research data with scientific implications. The full power of Open Access, however, can only be harvested if all other steps within the scientific cycle (including, e.g., notebook keeping) also become increasingly open, a goal with multiple names (of which Open Science is my favourite). This would not only reduce the considerable time lag between the obtainment of some results and their application in other circumstances but also foster the development of new citation metrics that would allow to more adequately evaluate the research accomplishments of young scientists.
I had been aware of the barriers since I started reading scientific papers in the mid-1990s, as I rarely had access to much of the literature cited therein, no matter what library I went to (and I went to more than a dozen regularly at that time). I got a glimpse of a possible solution when checking out the freely available content at BioMed Central on a weekly basis some years later but this again did not cover much of my core areas of interest (Evolutionary Biophysics), nor did arxiv.org that I had discovered around the same time. So it took the Budapest Open Access Initiative to make me aware of the progress that had already been achieved or was underway by 2001, and I signed it shortly after starting to work on my PhD thesis.
Knowledge grows when shared. And what else is the goal of research if not growing knowledge on a global scale? Besides, I find it non-sustainable to use the limited resources that we have to constantly re-invent the wheel for reasons external to the research process.
As an author, I strive to publish OA (i.e. gold) but independent of whether this is possible or not, I self-archive my papers (i.e. green OA). I am neither a journal editor nor part of a publishing house but I occasionally use my blog to cover OA and related topics, particularly Open Education, and Open Science as a whole, and I link to others who do this more intensively. Finally, I am playing around with platforms and technologies that may facilitate the transition to a more open scientific cycle, keeping a special eye on what these upcoming changes might mean to young scientists, e.g. in terms of theses and online lectures rather than papers. Others can, of course, familiarize themselves with the issue of effectively (in both time and resources) communicating (peer-reviewed) research results via the channels that are technically possible, they can experiment with the tools at hand to communicate their thoughts, and they can educate even more others about these matters in more traditional ways. In fact, I think they should.
SciDev, always a good source of information on science and development, recently posted a blog entry "How to set up a science blog" which may be of interest here, too, even though, at WAYS, you do not have to set up your own blog (it's all been done already, and you can start typing write away). The SciDev post also offers advice on what to blog and how, how often and how to generate discussion. Enjoy and feel free to use your WAYS blog for your first steps in science blogging!
As for blogging in the developing world, they mention the following: "Jonathan Gosier, a software developer living in Kampala, Uganda, describes blogging from a developing country as "a lesson in patience, endurance and ingenuity". On his blog on Apprifca he recommends ten applications that can ease the challenges of dealing with power cuts, unstable Internet connections and potential data loss."
Like much of the contents at SciDev, this post is also available in Chinese: 如何建立科学博客 .
WAYS is a pretty interactive website (i.e. you can both consume and generate contents in various medias, a concept commonly referred to as Web 2.0) but if you are not sure what all these new tools can do for you as a scientist, you may wish to take a look at the Small Worlds project hosted at the University of Leicester.
In this article, blogging features prominently, and to add practical expericnce to academic discourse, one of the authors, Nicholas J. Anthis, has commented on the major ideas of the paper in his blog, as did John Dennehy (not involved in the paper) in his blog. Both also posted their blog entries to the platform researchblogging.org that aggregates blogs on the contents of peer-reviewed research papers.
Most of the blogs at researchblogging are in English but contributions in other languages are also possible.
The first issue of an open science round-up, quite appropriately named "Corpus callosum" (after the brain structure responsible for most of the connections between our cerebral hemispheres), just went online on the blog of Shirley Wu.