Home » Archive

Articles Archive for February 2010

Blog, Featured »

[22 Feb 2010 | View Comments | 197 views]
The Panton Principles: Finding agreement on the public domain for published scientific data

I had the great pleasure and privilege of announcing the launch of the Panton Principles at the Science Commons Symposium – Pacific Northwest on Saturday. The Panton Principles aim to articulate a view of what best practice should be with respect to data publication for science. Where we found agreement was that for science, and for scientific data, and particularly science funded by public investment, that the public domain was the best approach and that we would all recommend it.

Blog, Featured »

[16 Feb 2010 | View Comments | 674 views]
Friendfeed for Research? First impressions of ScienceFeed

I have long been an advocate of Friendfeed as a great tool for researchers. Here I discuss the new Friendfeed clone built for researchers, ScienceFeed, suggest what it is good for and what its weaknesses are.

Blog »

[10 Feb 2010 | View Comments | 160 views]

Image by dullhunk via Flickr

One of the great things about being invited to speak that people don’t often emphasise is that it gives you space and time to hear other people speak. And sometimes someone puts together a programme that means you just have to shift the rest of the world around to make sure you can get there. Lisa Green and Hope Leman have put together the biggest concentration of speakers in the Open Science space that I think I have ever seen for the Science Commons Symposium – Pacific Northwest …

Blog, Featured »

[5 Feb 2010 | View Comments | 2,720 views]
Peer review: What is it good for?

Image by Gideon Burton via Flickr

It hasn’t been a real good week for peer review. In the same week that the Lancet fully retract the original Wakefield MMR article (while keeping the retraction behind a login screen – way to go there on public understanding of science), the main stream media went to town on the report of 14 stem cell scientists writing an open letter making the claim that peer review in that area was being dominated by a small group of people blocking the publication of innovative work. …