[open-science] Open Science at the British Ecological Society annual meeting
ross.mounce at gmail.com
Thu Sep 15 15:25:56 BST 2011
Cool. Thanks for the feedback.
You're right about the number of parallel sessions; things were more
spread out in the morning, but still I count that the 'digital
science' session was competing/overlapping with at least 4 other
different sessions on offer, namely:
'National Ecosystem Assessment'
'ML & Bayesian workshop'
'Biodiversity and ecosystem services sustainability'
'Forest Ecology & REDD'
Given this - I was pretty thrilled to see a packed room.
I'm saddened, but equally not surprised to hear that someone wasn't
convinced on 'Open Data' principles.
The 'What if we want to get further analysis & publications from the
data?' is the classic worry, everyone speaks about, and I understand
The key to this is valuing your data being re-used by someone else
At the moment people see this re-use as bad [scooping], rather than a
good thing [my data was re-used, I got a citation for this re-use, win
for me, win for them, win for science]
For some reason, a lot of academics don't seem to take any pride in
their data being re-used by others. But isn't this the whole point of
science? Science isn't just about generating hypotheses and
conclusions. A large part of science is about generating new data (and
then testing it, re-testing it, adding to it, testing it again,
The inference I think I draw from your friends' POV is that academics
are only rewarded for producing papers and NOT datasets. I think with
the increasing acceptance of data citation - producing excellent
datasets will be seen on a par with producing excellent papers.
Perhaps next time I shall elaborate more on this during my talk, and
less on the (high) standards of open data one should aspire too.
Many thanks for your comments Thomas.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Thomas Kluyver <takowl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 September 2011 11:11, Ross Mounce <ross.mounce at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Attendance (~interest?) was excellent. Despite there being many
>> parallel sessions on at the same time, the room was full-to-bursting,
>> every seat taken with 15+ standing around the edges of the room too.
>> Relative to attendance at an earlier session:
> Not entirely a fair comparison - the online science talks were a lunchtime
> workshop, so there were only a couple of other things running in parallel,
> while the regular talks had 9 sessions running at the same time.
> I chatted to one person about your talk later in the day, but she wasn't
> convinced. Essentially, the concern was 'What if we want to get further
> analysis & publications from the data?' I know this has come up before, but
> as you noted, your message was largely new to this audience. I think the
> 'Citation' section of the talk was probably the part that resonated most
> with the audience.
>> I noted many of the audience were taking notes with pen & paper... bit
>> ironic for such a 'digital' session IMO.
> Pen & paper haven't stopped working. ;-)
> Thanks for your talk,
More information about the open-science