I know this has been posted a couple of times but does anyone think that it is worth trying to write a "Friendfeed for Science" paper for this (or somewhere else even)? - Cameron Neylon

Absolutely. I'd say it's the first SM application that's truly been utilized by researchers. - Walter Jessen

Is Cameron the lead author? Someone needs to lead and we'll all follow and jump in and try to be generally helpful. - Bora Zivkovic

Sure, it's worth it. I repeat Bora's question: who's lead? - D0r0th34

I can write an abstract by the deadline and probably an outline. I can coordinate I guess and probably write an outline but would need a reasonable number of people committed to helping writing before going too far down the road. - Cameron Neylon

Is there an example of "citizen science" on FF? Not scientists collaborating, but non-scientists or amateur scientists pulling data about some aspect of nature together here? - Bora Zivkovic

Count me in .. I'll commit to writing. - Walter Jessen

What kind of writing help do you need, Cameron? I can maybe pitch in a few paragraphs. It seems to me that comparisons with e.g. academia.edu would be in order, f'rinstance. Can also offer to take other sections in, do basic grammar/sense check, integrate into a smoother paper. - D0r0th34

Dorothea that would definitely help. My experience of the crowd sourced grant proposal as that editing and sensemaking was a big part of the headache at the end. Just pulling all the pieces together and making sense of them. - Cameron Neylon

Bora - I'm not aware of "citizen science" per se but definitely examples of crowdsourcing (e.g. the comment categorization on PLoS ONE). Comparison with other networking sites would seem to fit with the call at some level - Cameron Neylon

Well, if you get enough buy-in to go for it, definitely count me in. - D0r0th34

Okey dokey - wiki set up at http://ff4s-paper.wikidot.com/ I've tried to set it up so that anyone can get in reasonably easily. If you get asked for a password for access then it is the name of our most prolific blogger all lower case twice no spaces - Cameron Neylon

Vivian Siegel and I have a manuscript in press that touches on the subject of FF in science; I started the research for it with a FF conversation http://bit.ly/1ZpfMJ Wanted to mention it so that it can be part of the discussion. Will post a link to this thread when we have a DOI URL. (If I forget and folks are interested, please remind me.) - Chris Patil

@Cam, xlnt but looks like I'm only the first through the gate other than you. Hint to others, *first name only* of our most prolific blogger x 2 ;-) - Graham Steel

@Chris - I just so happened to bump into Vivian over the weekend on Fb. Thanks for flagging up that other FF thread, which I don't think I'd seen before. - Graham Steel

Cmon Graham, he's only got one name :-) Like Madonna remember... - Cameron Neylon

Also pages are actually set to allow anonymous editing at the moment (I think) but obviously better if you do it under some name that can be credited. - Cameron Neylon

And now with a friendly cc0 at the bottom :-) - Cameron Neylon

Posted very quick paragraph for people to dissect as a starting point. - Matthew Todd

If you still need people, I'm up for it, too! - Björn Brembs

More the merrier... - Cameron Neylon

I already made some edits on the wiki... - Björn Brembs

Sounds like fun - I think the focus should just be on FF. Are we putting suggestions/questions in [.....] for Cameron to decide? Maybe we should tag them with our initials, like [..... -AL]. - Andrew Lang

I think we should be able to track who wrote what using the wiki functionality as long as people are logged in (see other comments for password) but tagging with initials is helpful. My thought was to let it run for a few days and then try to cut down to an abstract and save the rest of the text for the (hopefully) full paper. My experience of these things is that people don't like cutting other people's text out so we'll probably end up with lots of stuff that can then be re-used - Cameron Neylon

mmm ok wikidot isn't quite as functional in display as one might home but its ok. Certainly got a list of contributors but if you want to make a point about some specific writing or to propose a significantly re-written version then feel free to initial it. - Cameron Neylon

I probably cannot be an author, but I like your idea. I changed your first sentence to include "initiation" of collaboration...my first read-through it seemed to focus more on "carrying out" collaboration, which implied to me that the relationship existed prior to friendfeed. - Steve Koch

Part of the original call that's most relevant is perhaps: "How web tools are changing and widening this way of participating in the production of scientific knowledge. Do[es] this increase in participation consist in a real shift towards democratizing science or on the contrary is merely a rhetoric which do not affect the asymmetrical relationships between citizens and institutions?" FF is a case study in wideing participation. So, yes, we should discuss initiation as well as extension of collaborations. - Matthew Todd

Still only 183 words without the references. Perhaps need to select one or two examples. Also suggest we tone down how great FF is, and take an analytical approach - is it any good? - Matthew Todd

I agree with Matthew and suggest embedding the toned-down FF blurb into a solid description of the social media currently available (blogs, wikis, microblogging services, social networking sites are already mentioned in the abstract), pointing out for each the pros and cons in comparison to traditional means of communication (for wikis, I have started to compile such a comparison at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki... ). This would naturally lead to FF as a general-purpose aggregator of the more task-specific kinds of collaboration. - Daniel Mietchen

This sounds like a good plan - compare and contrast and then try to pull out what the key features are. Will try to look at this tomorrow if I can find time. - Cameron Neylon

Ok, I'm bumping this up for another round. I think the abstract looks pretty good (less sure about the word "peripherality" but I get the idea at least). Two questions. 1) Is it time to start fleshing this out a bit more for the actual paper? 2) I am wondering about whether JCOM is the right place. No harm in putting the abstract in but what about somewhere like Nature Methods? Or both for that matter? But that involves writing two papers... - Cameron Neylon

Actually, we have two abstracts there now since the two paragraphs are basically paraphrases of each other. 1) probably yes. 2) The purpose of the article is to describe science 2.0 through FF glasses, ideally in an updatable way, to people who do not know either, i.e. to those who prefer paper-based journals. Neither of the two options allow for both, but that could be ok for this initial shot. Alternatives? A community page at PLoS Biology perhaps? - Daniel Mietchen

To see existing PB community pages, run this search: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser... (the resulting url is horrible which is why I'm not linking directly to the result) This option might require some kind of formal community, rather than the loose affiliation of the biogang. - Bill Hooker

I think the point of this paper is to lay down some markers in the conventional literature so I was thinking of it as as fairly conventional paper. I haven't checked the JCOM copyright arrangements but if it goes to somewhere with liberal pre-print approach then we can re-use and put up the pre-print version at least on a website for updating (OWW? Some other Wiki). I'd be inclined not to go to PLoS just because the impression could be that "of course PLoS would publish that but it's not a _real_ paper" - Cameron Neylon

Which is NOT my view I should add - just don't want to give people any excuses... - Cameron Neylon

the references i put there aren't really for the abstract submission - they're for later... i think we should have a new paragraph talking about what friend feed is and another maybe outlining some examples - Christina Pikas

A good wiki place for updated versions would be near http://openwetware.org/wiki... . As for people who do not see PLoS papers as _real_, I share Camerons concerns, so we should go that extra step in their direction to pick them up near their home base. But where are suitable _real_ journals that allow reuse in a wiki? JCOM use CC-BY-NC-ND ( http://creativecommons.org/license... ) which would prohibit it. - Daniel Mietchen

Another way to go might be to start out on-wiki directly (not at wikidot - at the "final" destination), get one version published on paper and continue updating. Nature Physics may be open to that, judging from things like http://www.nature.com/nphys... and http://www.nature.com/nphys... . - Daniel Mietchen

Any NPG journal is ok with a pre-print and that includes writing the paper completely openly and leaving the presubmission version on a Wiki. The only license allowed for a preprint on Nature Precedings is CC-BY so for that version, re-use is perfectly allowed. It is only the peer reviewed published version that has a six month embargo on re-use. - Cameron Neylon

I'm thinking more and more that a real practical "Web2 tools for the active and busy researcher" could be a worthwhile Nature Methods paper. We could get David Crotty to referee ;-) - Cameron Neylon

I had a closer look at Nature Methods now and think the topic would fit (closest match I found is at http://www.nature.com/nmeth... ). However, who of the "tactile" readers are actually subscribed to the print edition of this one? I found only two Nature Methods papers in my electronic database and have never actually seen it in print. - Daniel Mietchen

Interesting development. I would definitely agree that a submission to a NPG journal would be an excellent idea. I used to get Nature Methods in print, but no longer. It was very good last time I saw it. Something on Web 2.0 tools would be excellent. That leaves the JCOM paper. Still worth submitting an abstract, but we need to emphasise the 'democritisation' of research, rather than FF itself. - Matthew Todd

Someone want to start a Web 2.0 tools paper on a wiki, and we can flesh out something and ask Nat Methods if they would be interested? - Matthew Todd

15th May deadline approaches. The way the abstract currently looks includes mention of peripherality. JCOM itself is interested in participation in science of non-scientists, e.g. those at peripheral institutions (I guess) but surely more importantly those who do not have access to the hardware of science, so the public, librarians, curators, journalists. I think this is a slightly different emphasis to what we originally had, which was that FF helped collaboration, period. Sounds like this may not be enough, and that the focus instead ought to be on the participants, not FF itself. If the focus is on the participation of the public etc, then we're going to need examples of where that has happened, which would need the non-active scientists reading this (i.e. those not in a paid research position) to suggest cases where they have been involved in science collaborations via FF. Can we make a big enough case for this to justify the article? What kind of democratic effort is FF enabling? - Matthew Todd

[And why is this whole thread not appearing at the top of my feed, despite my commenting on it afresh?] ugh - Matthew Todd

Bump - 5 days left. - Graham Steel

Two days left for this one now but I think we had agreed that Nature Methods would be a better location anyway. Still, without some sort of plan and deadlines, http://ff4s-paper.wikidot.com/ probably won't go too far but by means of http://friendfeed.com/ff-for-... we might actually get some concrete things to report about. - Daniel Mietchen

One day left, folks. - Graham Steel

One or two days? 15 May isn't it? I have received Nature Methods in the past, comes out monthly, got lots of good stuff in it. I agree with Mat that the focus of the current abstract is perhaps slightly off from the JCOM call but no harm in putting something in. I think we can talk about including people beyond research scientists and how that could lead to the general public. I was thinking of a NMeth paper as more of a "how to" than anything else. - Cameron Neylon

Looking at it it is actually well under 500 words even if we combine both versions. Can add some more but does anyone have a feel for what would be optimal? I've been caught out by funny cultural things about lengths of abstracts before... - Cameron Neylon

Chipped in a little more. Still around 400 words. Am still concerned about mentioning Friendfeed so much. Imagine in 10 years, and FF is no longer with us (I know, I know, but just imagine for a second), then this article will look terribly dated. We should mention FF, but try to also keep broadly mentioning aggregators as the central idea - the functionality is the key thing - commenting on real-time posts, the ability to 'like' things in order to spread the word, the open nature of the whole enterprise, allowing scientists to benefit from non-professional scientist input. - Matthew Todd

I think the abstract is in good shape now, and with 459 words it's not too far off the mark. In case of a submission to JCOM, however, we should perhaps ask whether they agree for this article to remove the "ND" (possibly along with the "NC") from their default CC-BY-NC-ND license - otherwise there will be problems with updating the stuff the wiki way. - Daniel Mietchen

I also need a list of all the people who feel they've contributed. Unfortunately the free settings only give us the last twenty edits and I have a feel there were more people who made some contributions at the beginning. I'm not so keen on upgrading to see whether I can recover those names...will draft up an email that says something about the ND bit - but as the license on the current piece is cc0 anyway they can't restrict our re-use anyway... - Cameron Neylon

And the word count is now 486.... Agree with Daniel re. dropping ND and possibly NC too. - Graham Steel

Just did another minor edit (anonymously by mistake)- 496 words! Again made FF an *example* of an aggregator, to try to make the article more general. - Matthew Todd

The deadline has been extended to June 1st - I just got an e-mail about it. http://jcom.sissa.it/call - Bora Zivkovic

i think it's pretty good right now. it's just an abstract and not the whole article so.. @Matthew - I like your edits making FF an example of a type of service. i'm fine with dropping the ND and NC and just keeping the by. how about we add a place for the authors on the page - with the names, e-mails and affiliation info we want to use (i use UMD for this not my place of work, btw) - Christina Pikas

Really like the new paragraph and additions to the first one. A call again. Anyone else in this conversation made contributions that they feel should be recognized by authorship at this stage (presumably can change later anyway if accepted)? I want to interpret that generously as well. Have put up a draft submission letter at http://ff4s-paper.wikidot.com/submiss... - Cameron Neylon

Ok so realized I can get a free upgrade for 30 days which lets me see all the revisions. So Dorothea, Graham Steel, Romney, and Walter made additions early on and aren't listed as authors currently. If you would like to be included (even if you just want to keep a hand in for potentially writing the paper) can you add your name/affiliation to the front page? - Cameron Neylon

Looks like you have plenty of help! Not sure another cook in the kitchen is needed. - D0r0th34

Am I just confused or has the deadline just shifted by two weeks in the last couple of hours? Now seems to be June 1. Still I'm pretty happy with abstract as stands and would be willing to put it in. - Cameron Neylon

+1 Cameron. Great submission letter (BTW). I say SHOOT and let's see what happens. - Graham Steel

If everyone is happy then I will submit it tomorrow. Speak now, or forever hold your pieces... - Cameron Neylon

i say shoot - but do we need a catchy title first? (agree with G.S. - like the submission letter) - Christina Pikas

Ah woops. Title. Mmmm. "Design Patterns for the Succesful Implementation of Web 2.0 Tools for Research: Does FriendFeed point the way for online tools that will enable and support widespread collaboration?" That's a bit unwieldy but it's a start... - Cameron Neylon

"A friend in feed is a co-author indeed" was/is the working title and I say keep it at that unless anyone comes up with a better one. - Graham Steel

+1 for Graham's -1 for Cameron's (bcs design patterns might be too hard to live up to in an article) - Christina Pikas

Do we need something a bit more explanatory though? Or is that the right style for this kind of journal? I agree design patterns is probably too much to get into this article. Guess that one will be further down the track. - Cameron Neylon

We're talking about collaboration, rather than co-authoring necessarily, so "A collaborator in need is a friend in feed" comes to mind (though now a bit of a mouthful!), then maybe followed by ": Democritisation of Research Through New Web 2.0 Tools." ?? Agree whole things looks good, and thanks for putting together the covering letter Cameron. You happy to submit, finally? Nice that deadline is extended, but don't think we need it unless we can't decide what to call it :) - Matthew Todd

I'll sit on it for the moment until we have had a bit more time to think about titles I think. Could benefit from a few cycles of discussion. I like Mat's but agree it is a bit more of a mouthful. My only concern with the Friend in Feed is a co-author indeed is that we probably won't write that much about authoring. Although that will be how the thing is put together so I'd be happy with it. - Cameron Neylon

Not having seen the latest discussion here, I have just put in "The social aggregator as a tool for user-led collaborative science" as a placeholder until we have agreed on a final phrasing. - Daniel Mietchen

How do people feel about double barreled titles. I find I do them by default but I know they irritate some. Thinking that "A friend in feed is a co-author indeed: The social aggregator as a tool for user-led collaborative science" might work? - Cameron Neylon

Fine with me. - Daniel Mietchen

And with me. - Graham Steel

Fine. Really hate double-barreled titles, but feels right here. - Matthew Todd

I would hate to impose my double-barreled tendencies on others ;-) - Cameron Neylon

it's been proven in a seminal article by L. Puppybreath that increased titular colonicity means increased citation: I agree :) - Christina Pikas

Ok peoples. Final draft version I propose to send off is available at http://dl.getdropbox.com/u... - Cameron Neylon

And submission letter at http://dl.getdropbox.com/u... - Cameron Neylon

Top man, Cameron =) - Graham Steel

Would I be right in thinking that if I could avoid submitting it by email then email will have played no part in the preparation process? - Cameron Neylon

Yes, absolutely. - Graham Steel

minor edit. on the draft version, 4. Patient Advocate, Scotland 5. University of Sydney, Australia should read:- 5. Patient Advocate, Scotland 6. University of Sydney, Australia - Graham Steel

fixed. Also minor edit to submission letter - Cameron Neylon

Will send at end of day today - Cameron Neylon

or tomorrow...but it's gone now... we see what happens - Cameron Neylon

Danka very much. - Graham Steel

just our affiliations alone are cool - what a diverse set! how exciting - Christina Pikas

Awesome, Cameron, thanks for sending it in, and for catalysing this whole (very interesting) process. - Matthew Todd

Well thankyou all for writing it! Now all we've got to do is turn it into a paper.. - Cameron Neylon

Can I add a paragraph about a commercial view on this? I will probably do it as free-citizen (private person), not as the employee of the company I am working for. - joergkurtwegner

This is cool: http://tinyurl.com/l98lwp - Bora Zivkovic

Just to keep the conversation together: Just received this back from the editor "I'm the editor of the JCOM's special issue about User-led, P2P Science. We hereby inform you that your abstract unfortunately has not been selected for publication. There was strong competition, several applicants for the limited places, and we wanted to strictly respect the topic of the call." - I guess they felt it was out of scope which we were concerned about. Anyway, still keen to write the paper, so where else could it be sent? I think there is a "how to" paper that could go to Nature Methods but that is slightly different to what the abstract is at the moment. Thoughts? - Cameron Neylon

Yes, I think a Nature Methods paper would actually be the more interesting possibility in any case. Scope being Web 2.0 Tools for Scientific Collaboration? - Matthew Todd

Yes, that's what I was thinking, with some use cases and examples of "how to" effectively. probably still focussing on friendfeed - Cameron Neylon from twhirl

Yes, "Web 2.0 Tools for Scientific Collaboration" for Nature Methods sounds good to me too. - Daniel Mietchen

ok - best get on and write it then :-) Will try and get some sections put up over the next week - Cameron Neylon

Was wondering what has or has not happened since the last update in June. Any clues?? - Graham Steel

Ummm not a great deal I'm afraid. It is currently No 4 on my list of papers I really must do something about...Daniel has been regularly updating the bibliography section - Cameron Neylon

Thanks, Cameron. - Graham Steel