First run of tidbits on Scientopia! As you can imagine, I've got a few…
- Even "partly open" data is worlds better than closed: Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s. Yet Too Many Researchers Are Reluctant to Share Their Data. How does that work, exactly? Ask fellow Scientopian Proflike Substance, or the researcher hit with an unexpected Freedom of Information request. See also the Mad Biologist's take.
- Pitch in on an open-data citizen-science project! Heather Piwowar explains how. This project is an example of what Gavin Starks means when he says open data require credibility and transparency.
- The tech press is catching on to the legislative fight over open access, and they don't like what they see coming from publishers any more than I do.
- Speaking of Heather, she wants everything OA, right now. If you do too, you might want to read Navigating Publisher Agreements: How to Retain Your Rights without Losing Your Contract. Also look at cultural studies researcher Ted Striphas's honest assessment of his discipline's somewhat dysfunctional relationship with publishing, as well as the Times Higher Ed supplement's fiery take.
- Additional dominoes in the Nature pricing situation: Purdue may have to drop its subscription as well, and Southern Illinois University makes its stance known (PDF).
- There's a lot of talk in data-curation circles about "quality" data, but my own sense is similar to John Erickson's: Data Quality is in its Fitness to the Beholder. How do you get scientists who produce quality data? Pay attention to the culture around them, says the Practical Quant. Also, follow the 10 Rules For Radicals.
- Lots of thought-provoking material at Stanford's Data and Code Sharing Roundtable.
- Absolutely fascinating, and quite comprehensible for the layperson: Solving the genome puzzle.
As always, drop a comment here if you see something the Book of Trogool crowd needs to know about.
