Steve Koch › Likes

Why people do not comment online articles? What is wrong with the online commenting system? I think this is one of the central issues in Science 2.0. Here is the test case, which is very demonstrative:
Definitely a blog post in this but I would say the answer is simple - the commentary feeds off itself, you need a community in place for that to happen and there isn't any such community at the PLoS ONE site. The existing community provides people (obviously) but also context and a space which isn't empty. Comes back to the issue of modularity of contributions as well. But bottom line, the people are here (and probably elsewhere in coffee rooms etc) so the conversation happens here. - Cameron Neylon
Exactly. The conversation will happen where the people are. It's up to the publishers to figure out how to harness those conversations. Given the API, and the activity here on FF, would be cool to pull those discussions into the article itself. - Deepak Singh
If you study carefully the test case above, you will see that there are two characteristic features 1) It is easier to start a discussion where the people are (but for that it is enough just to send a link here, and discuss there), and 2) people obviously do not want to disclose their real names under critical comments. This suggests to me that the current PLoS commenting system is wrong in forcing people to register before the post, and not allowing anonymous comments. - genereg
I think its been established pretty strongly now through things like OpenWetWare and other sites that completely anonymous commenting is probably not helpful or desirable in science. Those sites that strongly encourage or require the use of "real names" see little or no vandalism, and it could be argued, a more constructive approach to discussion. I admit to being conflicted about the... more... - Cameron Neylon
But the people here at FF, they _are_ very online persons. They know all details on how to comment and so on. Still, they choose not to comment under their real names, and are very upset when their critical comments appear to be linked to a wider online audience. Afterall, scientific reviews have _always_ been anonymous, and there is no reason why online reviews should not be anonymous... more... - genereg
How do you reach that assumption? I know the real names of pretty much all of them, and most of us have "handles" that are associated with names. Online anonymity is becoming a strict no-no pretty fast. - Deepak Singh
That is why FF is NOT anonymous. But people who feel safe here (perhaps because it is not that easy to search, an so on) do not feel safe to expose their names on the _publicly_ available web site, where their comments will be associated with the article forewer - genereg
"people obviously do not want to disclose their real names under critical comments" What's your evidence for this? Me? I am fine with making critical comments under my own name -- it's not as though I thought the FF thread was magically invisible to everyone but my BFFs. I'd prefer to word things a bit differently in direct comment to an author (specifically, I'd explain why the lack of... more... - Bill Hooker
I am still a little confused by how you can reach that conclusion on anonymous commenting. There seems to be no real evidence or suggestion for that. Yes there are people afraid of online commenting in general, but that's a general problem. Those people don't show up on Friendfeed either - Deepak Singh
The test case above was at the FF. The people there are both _online_ people, and experts, and interested in commenting on that particular article. But they are still afraid to comment on public. - genereg
@Bill, read the last comments in that thead by Ian York - genereg
Ah, missed Ian's last couple of comments -- genereg, I think you're reaching if you are putting Ian's part in that thread forward as evidence for your claims about anonymity, too. I'm all for anonymity being available to those who want/need it, but I don't think it's any kind of answer to why article commenting hasn't taken off. - Bill Hooker
Genereg, I think you are misintepreting Ian's comment (although I'm not sure and I have asked him on that thread). I think he is making a point about asking permission before re-publishing but he makes it very clear that there is nothing "wrong" with re-publishing just that doing it to (perhaps) make a point is a bit impolite. - Cameron Neylon
In addition, I personally, would not comment that article at PLoS One under my real name. One of the reasons would be that I don't want my name to be associated with THAT article. - genereg
In addition, I do know a number of articles which I would like to comment (and I am quite an _online_ person to figure out how to do this) but I don't comment just for the reason that it requires a registration - genereg
I'd guess the difference is to a large extent due to the way PLoS One and FF are set up. PLoS One allows comments, FF is set up for commenting. FF has more comments, but they're also more ephemeral. Comments that are going to sit on my paper should be well thought of and not pesky one-liners. As such, maybe linking from the biophotonics paper to FF was a mistake. OTOH, I'd want all 'activity' somehow linked to my paper, but in a different way. - Björn Brembs
"The test case above was at the FF. The people there are both _online_ people, and experts, and interested in commenting on that particular article. But they are still afraid to comment on public." ... I am not sure how that last conclusion was made. Pretty much all of us (there will always be exceptions) are more than happy to be public with disagreements regardless of forum. It's just that much more convenient to discuss here - Deepak Singh
@Deepak, Pretty much all of us would be happy to be on public with positive or neutral comments, but honest comments on the artticles are in most cases critical... That is why the standard way the peer-review goes is through anonymous systems. - genereg
Key is --- little comments on PLOS, but many here on FF ... because the (trusted) people (in your network) are here, so the conversation happens here. --- How to move this? Backlinking FF on PLOS should be technically possible? Which FF tracks are discussing this article? A little bit like natures, which blogs are discussing this article. - joergkurtwegner
genereg, that's a very narrow point of view and does not reflect my experience. We are providing public peer review, if you want to call it that. As scientists we are quite happy providing "critical" reviews at conferences and posters, it's not like that people are necessarily averse - Deepak Singh
I think jkw has pin-pointed the most interesting question (also mentioned by Bjoern and several others): how can PLoS pull in value from conversations happening elsewhere? I think it would be a great idea if every PLoS article had a "conversations" tab as well as a "comments" tab, and under "conversations" provided links to, or inline versions of, all the commentary online in blogs, FriendFeed, etc etc. A one-stop shop for "who is talking about this article?". - Bill Hooker
There is a point in this that echoes what Eric Weinstein says about "going short" or long on an idea. The concept that peer review fails precisely because there is no personal consequences for rejecting a paper and getting that wrong. Eric uses the language of hedge funds to suggest that people should be required to "unwind their positions" - which absolutely requires identity and... more... - Cameron Neylon
I think PLoS is interested in pulling this commentary in to the article space. It would be a great way of connecting up commentary. I think it is technically non-trivial but it also raises the issue of how you might summarise or aggregate the commentary in a machine readable and parseable form. Sure it is helpful seeing a lot of people saying something is great or rubbish, but how do you present that in a way that makes it possibel to triage 50 papers to find the one you're after? - Cameron Neylon
If you want (noisy) links, just use Google with link:to_article, e.g. . This does not give quality backlinks, and also not any real-time information like FF. So, some additional comment semantics (microblog, blog?), grouping (Wordle?), or central service is required (FF,Twitter). - joergkurtwegner
All our talks about some kind of federated comment system in the past year or so have ended up with "we need a researcherID to incentivize people". That's the opposite of anonymity. Would G Bilder care to comment on how things are going on that front? - Mr. Gunn
You guys don't believe me, but here it is -- a simple solution to the question why people do not comment online articles. Allow anonymous comments (no IP tracking, no registration requirements) and you will get at least 1 comment per 100 views of each article. That is a lot, and enough to get the system working. I am telling this both as an active scientist and as a person with ~10 year experience of online administration and moderation. It is very easy to check this idea. - genereg
I think there's different kinds of comments - some throwaway comments, some are metacommentary, some are spam, and some are thoughtful and considered reviews. The PLoS appspot comment categorization experiment that was done a while back showed this. - Mr. Gunn
PLoS has a hard enough time staying afloat. Aggregating comments like is suggested here would be a full time job for someone over at PLoS. Yes, there are software solutions, but most of them require human editting or verification. FWIW, guest commenting is a must for starting any on-line community. Having to register is a gigantic barrier to building a critical mass of users. Get the guest comments and conversations going first and once the community gels, people will WANT to register. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces
Nature Network is probably the example they have in mind here, Brian. Am I correct that it takes more time to moderate the craziness in open discussion than it does to assemble aggregated content? - Mr. Gunn
It is clear that in the majority of cases conversations dont natually happen at the journal site itself. Therefore, PLoS would ideally like to aggregate all the externally located conversations that happen *about* a paper, *onto* the paper. In this way, a reader would use the paper as the launching off point - they read it, and then follow links from it to read the relevant conversations. If the 3rd parties allow it, then the text of those conversations could also be imported to the journal site. - Peter Binfield
The only problem is how to reliably link the paper to an external conversation that could have happened anywhere, without any consistent linking protocol, and at any time from the day of publication onwards. They dont all happen on FF I am afraid (some of the Darwinius discussions appeared on Wargaming bulletin boards!). This is a problem that we have some ideas about, and that we are working on... - Peter Binfield
You still don't believe that just removing the mandatory registration is enough to get the comments system working at the journal web site.... Well here is one more argument: look at the web site of BMJ, and compare how much more frequent is commenting there in comparison with PLoS. The ONLY difference is that BMJ does not require mandatory registration for posting comments:... more... - genereg
@genereg: how many man-hours and dollars does BMJ spend on moderation of their comment system? See: Revitalising rapid responses Davies and Delamothe BMJ.2005; 330: 1284 - Bill Hooker
compare: to that is, compare 2% to 18% (of papers commented on in BMC vs. PLoS ONE). - Bora Zivkovic
BMJ is the British Medical Journal, not to be confused with BMC. BMC is the same as PLoS from the point of view that you need to register in order to comment. - genereg
sorry, not meant to imply they are the same, just to point out that commenting on ONE is not shabby and the only available comparison is that to BMC. - Bora Zivkovic
Note also that you don't have to register for BMJ but you do have to send your comment by email, providing an email address and name, current occupation and place of work (including postcode). Perhaps you could try making up fake info and see if it gets published, but I'd say simply registering once under a carefully guarded netonym would be easier and safer. - Bill Hooker
@Bill, I was just able to sumit a post to BMJ with the word test in all fields, and it takes ~30 sec. It's not by email. Their submission form is the simplest form that one can imagine, you can fill whatever, and finally there is a simple antispam filter, that's it. No registration, no email validation. - genereg
Where'd you comment? I bet it won't be published. - Bill Hooker
I did not press the "submit" button, so it would not publish. It takes 30 sec to do everything before pressing the final submit button. As I said, then it depends on the moderation policy, whether the journal has a premoderation or postmoderation, I don't know what they have, both options are OK. - genereg
As far as I can tell it's pre-mod, and I don't think Dr Ano Nymus, email, is going to appear in the BMJ rapid responses any time soon. I'd love to know if they require email validation. To be clear though: I'm in no way against anonymous commenting, even if it does have its problems. BMJ had to tighten its moderation policy considerably, but only after about the 50, 000th... more... - Bill Hooker
"and get the community growing" -- the obvious thing is that the "community" which might be willing to comment on the online articles is the Whole Scientific Community. Most people today get articles from the web, not from the local libraries, so it is not a problem for them to comment online if there are no artificial barriers such as a mandatory registration. Something like 1 comment... more... - genereg
Genereg - I think I agree with you on one point, which is that signon for all these things could be a lot easier. Setting up yet another account is a pain and we need better systems for that. But my belief is, and I think this is backed up by a growing amount of experience, that anonymity in particular destroys trust in conversations and leads to a very poor quality of discussion. In... more... - Cameron Neylon
Cameron, suppose, the comment under the article says "you guys have to reshuffle the axes on Figure 2. He-he :)". You look at the article and realize that indeed the axis X refers to Y and axis Y refers to X, so they should be reshuffled. And you might not notice that without the anonymous comment under the article. Does it make any difference for you, who has made that comment? - genereg
It might make a difference to how much attention I paid in the first place - but my argument is that those helpful comments would be totally outweighed by comments like "man, your colour choices are so bad, which idiot did you get to make that graph?" - or the cost of moderating those out would rise to unsustainable levels. First law of comment forums - you can have anonymous commenting... more... - Cameron Neylon
I think that comments like "man, your colour choices are so bad, which idiot did you get to make that graph?" would be absolutely OK if rephrased "I think the color choice is wrong". The moderation policy may depend on the journal, but in general, both the Netiquette and Scientific Ethics are well-developed things, they can be written down explicitly as the rules for the moderators, and... more... - genereg
I'm guessing we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The nice thing being of course that as we are scientists we can hopefully agree once there is some evidence in! :-) I definitely would agree with the argument that we need more experimentation in this space - Cameron Neylon
"First law of comment forums - you can have anonymous commenting or unmoderated commenting, you can't have both" -- In fact, I have seen many online communities, where both anonymous commenting, registered commenting and different types of moderation perfectly coexist. - genereg
definitely some scientists really afraid give a critical comments online, just because of academia and grants system (in US at least) is fucked up (in case if author of paper that you critically commented on will be you peer-reviewer in future...)! For me also could be a problem, because i'm a postdoc and my blog reading some professors(on whose papers i can comment) who going to review my papers and grants in the future. - Alexey
I express some of my thoughts here - - Alexey
I disagree that commenting for scientific analytical blogs should be anonymous, because blog content should be updatable and readers should trust information that they see. In this case it's important to link to the comment associated with particular name in the field to estimate how much we can trust this information. - Alexey
Alexey, I agree on blogs, but blogs is a different story, blogs are mostly for self-promotion and self-expression, while comments on scientific articles are mainly to fix scientific problems. The motivation to fix a scientific mistake is usually strong enough to do this even anonymously. - genereg
If there were an easy solution to this, it would have been solved already. Many, many very smart people have tried to fix this already. I think, like Cameron says, we're more or less waiting for the transition to where online comments matter. To where they're taken seriously, to where they have an effect on the overall profile of your research. To where the argument can be made that... more... - Mr. Gunn
Mr. Gunn, I understand your point about the importance of self-promotion and career track, but I think that commenting online articles has nothing to do with this. - genereg
So you think your blog and your online presence have nothing to do with your career? Why post your CV on your blog, then? Nobody that matters will see it, right? - Mr. Gunn
I don't understand completely why scientists afraid to comment papers online under their real names. I do comment on PLoS and Nature under my real name even i have a some risks as a postdoc. It's everything about your scientific authority. I want professionals in the field to know me. - Alexey
Mr. Gunn, Blog as I said is a self-expression, and self-promotion, but comments at online journals are not. PS. Please read my message concerning your blog post! - genereg
I'll do that, but you probably want to go back through your comments here and remove all the ones where you linked to your own blog. - Mr. Gunn
Alexey, are you sure you can say everything you want there under your name? As you said, you consider some risks for you as a postdoc. Now, assume that your risks as a postdoc are minor in comparison with the risks of a senior scientist, where there are million-dollar grants on stock. - genereg
@genereg , @Cameron - I am not interested in anonymous comments. I am an industry person working in drug development, which is probably one of the most intellectual property sensitive industries. So, anonymous comments? Not for me, even not in my private time ! If you want comments from people in industry, then we seriously need a review mechanism, not only by the blog owner, but a... more... - joergkurtwegner
We have just witnessed a next round of the test case, with my own name not associated with my FF account being found in the internet and posted in a blog article discussing this thread . Not a big deal. However, this opens up a new large series of questions... more... - genereg
genereg, perhaps the misunderstanding lies in the fact that you thought you were anonymous but you really never were. I didn't go searching the internet for your name - you linked directly to your blog from here. There are ways of being anonymous on the internet if that's what you really want. What your doing seems to me the equivalent to leaving your house open and unlocked, telling... more... - Mr. Gunn
Mr. Gunn, I am never hiding my identity, but it is also not directly associated with my profile. This means that I am safe in terms of the search engines, and my real name is associated only with things with which I want it to be associated. That is also true, if you are commenting a strange (wrong) journal article: even if you are right and they are wrong, your name will be forefer associated with that wrong article. - genereg
Unless you got out of your way to make it so, anonymity does not exist, so we should probably just get over it and worry more about being presentable. I'll offer myself up as an example - Search for either William Gunn or Mr. Gunn and try to find something embarrassing about me. Go ahead, I'll wait. - Mr. Gunn
LOL I am too old for these games. And I know Internet. And Science. The real anonymity is impossible even with anonymous peer-review. But there are a lot of reasons to have _some degree_ of anonymity in science and in the internet. It just works like this. It can't work without this. - genereg
genereg, on that last issue I have to disagree. If we want to use the web in general to discuss science, it's very difficult to separate the two. Google is not going to index you separately as a scientist and as a web participant. Well, it might, but managing that level of identity is hard, and one could argue that the two shouldn't be completely separated, just the communities might... more... - Deepak Singh
Deepak, I understand the point. However, here are additnial 5 cents, why anonymous commenting might help. At some point, there was an evaluation of BMC comments, and it revealed, if I am not wrong, only 17% critical comments. while in an anonymous peer-review most of the comments are critical. Thus, even if we forget about the decreased number of online comments due to the registration... more... - genereg
genereg, if this statistics is correct, that show to me how immature the scientists and science online. They afraid to disclose their name and status because of money-grants-career and poke each other by critical anonymous commenting like a kids in the sand box. Be open, be confident in your data and expertise scientists, be able to accept critical comments and reply nicely and be able... more... - Alexey
You are assuming that comments must be critical to be useful. Useful comments can include questions, concerns, and criticisms, and even the latter can be framed properly. I have said this before, and I will reiterate that there is one primary reason for anonymity; that you're afraid of making a fool of yourself in public. I admit that this fear might be related to concerns about your... more... - Deepak Singh
genereg, yea I can tell not everything from my blog, but a lot. I criticize a lot, but if i'm wrong, come and tell me about it. I'll accept and we will find the truth in discussion. I can't tell many things that I don't feel like i have enough expertise and knowledge but I can ask my readers about their opinion based on their expertise. - Alexey
Alexey, this means that you criticize the things which are safe to criticize :) - genereg
Deepak, assume that you are at a journal club in some friendly lab. Now, how many of the questions from there would you dare to ask at the comment section of the online journal? :) - genereg
How many journal club questions would I "dare" ask in a journal comments section? All of them. genereg, are you familiar with - Mr. Gunn
All of them?! good! If this is the case we will soon get the system working :) I did not get your point about - genereg
genereg, all of them. If there is something to say, it will be said, regardless of forum. The language might change, but the questions and comments won't - Deepak Singh
good. unfortunately other people do not behave like this. we have seen it in the example with Biophotonics paper. Many people wanted to say that it is wrong, but none said this at the journal web site.. - genereg
Let me ask this question. If this was presented at a conference, do you think people in the audience would be quiet? - Deepak Singh
not, sure. the question still, is why they don't comment. - genereg
Could it be as simple as they are not that comfortable on the web? They don't comment on Friendfeed either (the ones who do are active everywhere). - Deepak Singh
nope, i discussed this with a couple of active bloggers. they are not at FF, they are active bloggers, and they have seen the article at the journal we site. we discussed it online, that's it - genereg
Do they blog anonymously? and if not, would they blog about this? Sorry if that's been discussed before - Deepak Singh
nope. what's the reason to blog anonymously. it was discussed before. blog is to express and advertise yourself, peer-review is something absolutely different - genereg
I just don't get it. An opinion is an opinion, regardless of medium. To think that the medium somehow makes that opinion different and you are not willing to stand behind your opinion just does not compute in my head, but that's me - Deepak Singh
Just try to think why the anonymous peer-review was invented. - genereg
The primary reason for anonymous peer-review is the elimination of bias. If the reason for anonymous peer-review was to be able to criticize anonymously, then the system would be even more flawed than it is today (and it is flawed). - Deepak Singh
"Several of the other journals published by the BMJ group[10] allow optional open peer review,[11][12][13] as do PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science[14][15]. The BMJ's Rapid Responses[16] allow ongoing debate and criticism following publication.[17" - genereg
These journal comments that we discuss should have been that "open peer-review" - genereg
Open = No anonymity, otherwise it's not open, and like Neil said, comments and an "open peer review" process are different beasts - Deepak Singh
right. but if it does not work this way, we can try to figure out another way - genereg
That I won't disagree with, but anonymous commenting is not the right way - Deepak Singh
it depends, what is more important for you, the ideas or the people who say them. for me, the ideas - genereg
Both, anonymity, IMO is ripe for abuse. - Deepak Singh
well, as I said, just removing the mandatory registration does not mean a complete anonymity. plus the moderation.... - genereg
Agree that scientific identity is an area with a lot of potential for innovation. The way I see it, we aren't that far apart in intent. - Deepak Singh
Haha, this is what I get for waiting a day to come back to the feed!! @Mr.Gunn for sure moderation is a time consuming job, although I think that aside from blocking spam (and this is relatively easy) that the vast majority of posts will be on topic. Things might get ugly, but implementing a community self moderation system usually works really well ex: add a "Flag this comment" button,... more... - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces
Here is what I think. Never underestimate the number of possible compliance regulations people can violate. There are many of them, and the number is just growing. - - joergkurtwegner
Interesting how the discussion around the original article quickly drifted away from the scientific content and toward a meta-discussion, which was continued here. Could there be something more fundamental at work here? Also, anyone got any hard data on just how unused the PLoS commenting system is? For example, "the average number of comments on a PLoS article is 0.55 - here's how we calculated it." An analysis of that sort could offer new insights. - Rich Apodaca
Rich - There are plenty of examples of deep online discussion of scientific papers that stays on-topic, and doesn't drift off-topic. But so far as I can see, it's mostly happening on blogs. See, e.g., the n-category cafe ( ). - Michael Nielsen
Rich: there's this ( and a couple other workups of the same data. - Bill Hooker
wow, direct critique only 7%. Again as with BMC there is a shift towards positive and neutral comments, probably due to non-anonymity, as opposed to the typical comments obtained during anonymous peer review - genereg
I would be curious to see the age groups for any comment percentage numbers - joergkurtwegner
Another reason may simply be technical: PLoS ONE uses a kind of pop-up window (duuno the tech term for these) that blocks the whole browser. If I am to write thoughtful comments, I usually check some sources relevant to the statements I make, so I do not find this implementation particularly user-friendly. Just now, my browser (Firefox 3) froze after I had pressed "submit" in this window, and I had to redo the rating (fortunately, I had drafted the text in a separate text editor). - Daniel Mietchen
I think there should be a shift towards neutral and positive comment between the peer review process and after a paper has been accepted. If there's no shift, the peer review process isn't doing its job. - Scott Joseph Kennedy
That is true. But in general it seems that in Internet most serious comments to serious articles tend to be critical, because neutral comments do not add anything (so they are close to spam unless they provide some additional usefull information), and writing positive comments is not self-motivating (you spend your valuable time just to say that you agree with something). - genereg
I'm thinking Jorge Cham from PhD comics must have seen this thread. - Mr. Gunn
LOL, that's exactly what the "neutral" comments are. This spam can only happen in the absence of moderation. - genereg
Related thread at StackOverFlow: Why aren’t people rating questions? - Daniel Mietchen
January 11, 2013. Today I have read with great interest a recent article in the Guardian, which also proposed anonymous post-publication peer-review (, and have one essential comment to it. The idea of the anonymous post-publication peer-review was firstly introduced here, at FriendFeed in 2009 (see the... more... - genereg
January 26, 2013. Today I noticed a great new web site which has implemented the ideas that I have proposed above. Ok, three years later it is still not too late :) It would be nice if the authors contact me, because their web site still lacks a couple of essential components that would be needed - genereg
Daniel Mietchen
University of New Mexico just missed an opportunity to be ahead of the curve -
Steve Koch, one of the most active practitioners of open science, announced today that he has not been awarded tenure, despite the considerable support he had received from the global open science community. He accompanied his announcement with an open … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
So true! - Björn Brembs
Daniel, do these science3point0 posts still exist anywhere? Google is not finding this one. - Chris M
Bill Hooker
This is a very good overview of Open Science:
Heather Piwowar
can I just say.... My blog! The Guardian has linked to my blog!!!! :) :) :) #openaccess
Heather Piwowar
Hey librarians? Did you see it? ACRL *urges* you to sign the petition. Maybe you'll be number 10k!!! #openaccess
Bill Hooker
Beware the creeping cracks of bias : Nature News & Comment -
Tags: scienceisasnakepit openscience - Bill Hooker
Cameron Neylon
What is people's fav example of reproducible (not just replicable) research from the past year? Looking for egs of going beyond the call...
I think Daily Life in an Ivory Basement had a pretty good one not long since. - RepoRat
That's the example I used for replicability - was trying to draw the distinction and failing somewhat...or rather not finding any good examples of the latter... - Cameron Neylon
What is the diff between reproducible and replicable? - Rajarshi Guha
+1 Rajarshi, interested to know what the difference is. - Bill Hooker
Replication being a direct copy of the process - generally facilitated by code availablility, or machine images or similar. Essentially running exactly the same and making sure it comes out exactly the same. Reproduction (or reproducibility) is more general, seeing the same result in a similar (but not necessariy identical) situation. At least that is how I am using them. - Cameron Neylon
You can reproduce a result without showing it is replicable. Less sure whether you can replicate without reproducing. Depends whether you want reproducible to just be the superset or want it to require meaning you get the same result in systems that are at least somewhat different. - Cameron Neylon
Uh. That's gonna take some getting my head around. Is replication really an option for wet lab work? You'd need same buffers, same lot numbers of critical bioreagents... - Bill Hooker
But replication doesn't always lead to the exact same result. Consider technical / biological replicates in a screening experiment. This is in line with Bills comment - even with the exact same reagents, minor day to day variability will lead to *exact* replicated results. On the other hand, it would be expected that such results would reproducible, in terms of say final hits selected - Rajarshi Guha
Also, it seems that in your definition of replicable, you're actually referring to the process to obtain the result, with the result being the 'validation' of the process. If that's the case then I can see how it makes sense to say "You can reproduce a result without showing it is replicable" - Rajarshi Guha
If by "replication" you mean "process validation", there are whole careers in that field. Industry is waaay ahead of academia there. For the most part, though, I'd think you only need validation when you are making something. For research, reproduction is sufficient. Or am I missing something? - Bill Hooker
Sorry, got behind on this. So, yes, it complicated. Strictly you could argue that there wet lab replication isn't possible. I think there is a place for distinguishing between - we did the same experiment [for some value of "same"] and got same answer vs we did something similar and the claims made hold up. In the computational space there is a useful distinction between "ran same code and got same result" and "re-implemented algorithm and got same result" which is where I was coming from. - Cameron Neylon
In the computational space at least replication is useful as a first step towards re-use of components. If you know you can get the exact same result out then you're in a position to start fiddling. Arguably the same is true in the wet lab but harder to draw lines around why things don't work as they're supposed to. Basically, as I suspect we've come to before, we have a bit of a poverty of language in this space. - Cameron Neylon
Bill Hooker
Philosophers' Playground: Are Friends Necessary? - http://philosophersplayground....
Tags: lostart - Bill Hooker
How could that actually be put to a test? With a mouse model? Split a litter in two groups, let one stay in place, let the other travel to a chain of other groups, then compare vital parameters? - Daniel Mietchen
Open Notebooks
Anthony Salvagno
Anthony Salvagno
Preparing for the future…: I have super high aspirations for myself and I’m pretty sure everyone around me has t...
Heather Piwowar
Seeking Project Coordinator for Science and Data - via @creativecommons
damn. that looks like a helluva lot of fun. - RepoRat
It does, doesn't it!! - Sarah
Sarah G.
Would it be weird to get a human sized hamster ball to walk around chicago in to avoid inclement weather and germs? Um, asking for a friend.
You know all those people (and by those people I mean "we") would end up playing bumper balls on State Street then, right? - Hedgehog
You say this as though it were a bad thing. - RepoRat
Only when Sarah bumps me out to Lake Michigan and I have to crack the lid and paddle back. - Hedgehog
John Dupuis
RT @laurendodd: Just saw a librarian shush other librarians at a library conference #meta #inception
Mr. The Jason Fleming
Any new innovative solutions for getting power to student laptops?
That does *not* involve an extension cord blocking student thoroughfares - Mr. The Jason Fleming from Android
Move all the furniture to the outlets? That's how our students cope. - barbara fister
They are doing that here and I think it is driving ref staff bonkers. They are about to put an order in for surge protectors. Which I view as tripping hazards. - Mr. The Jason Fleming from Android
Power outlets on/in the tabletops... Low-budget? Extension cords duct-taped to the floor (artfully), higher budget? Floor outlets under tables - Aaron the Librarian
Higher budget: drop power tubes from the ceiling, arrange furrniture around new skinny power pillars - RudĩϐЯaЯïan
Rudi: I'm thinking something like what you are saying that can be brought out at the end of the semester as needed. Dangling power tubes from the ceiling that can be plugged in to - Mr. The Jason Fleming from Android
I've read somewhere of libraries that pulled power cabling into skinny pillars with outlets. They were able to drop power to where it was most needed. But, if you just drop power strips from the ceiling, they will be found and used -- the Library tunnel at UIUC had 2 outlets, both in the ceiling. And students were regularly plugged in to them! - RudĩϐЯaЯïan
Please to invent wireless power outlets - Joe
Hmm, Joe, there's an interesting idea. They do make those weird charging pads. I wonder if libraries could invest in a bunch of those, and check them out to students working away from outlet range? - RudĩϐЯaЯïan
It seems like there should be some kind of battery we could charge behind the desk and circulate that students could then plug into. Of course, we'd need 100 and they'd always be either charging or all checked out. - Hedgehog
Hedgehog is an optimistic hedgehog. If students knew what we offered, then yes. I'm cynical today, apparently, and full of doubt... - RudĩϐЯaЯïan
I think Purdue is or is planning on getting those charging pads to put on tables for charging phones, etc. Sorry I don't have more details - my partner saw them at the newly remodeled library at Purdue ( - Sarah
Did someone say wireless extension cords? :-) - bentley
Hmmm, don't put human beings between the antennas. - Joe
Kaijsa: My director likes the power cords dangling from the ceiling idea enough for me to start looking into it. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) know which libraries have done this? - Mr. The Jason Fleming
The photos I shared are from the Research Commons in Allen South at University of Washington. I think I remember that NC State has something from the ceiling, but I might be thinking of Georgia Tech. Will check with the people here who visited. - kaijsa
Georgia Tech has chords that extend from the ceiling - You can't see it particularly well in this image but there are reeled chords that can be pulled down to hang over work spaces. Another idea - talk to theater tech folks to see if they have any ideas? - Galadriel C.
McMaster has the ceiling-mounted power squids too. They're pretty good. - DJF
Ceiling Mounted Power Squid: future band name! - RepoRat
actually, I originally referred to them as the "ceiling mounted electrical squid", but power squid is better - DJF
I bet you could come up with an awesome/adorable publicity campaign around the library's new Power Squid. - Regular Amanda
The Power Squids have capes, and are flying down from the ceiling to save your laptop. I am very enamored of this publicity poster that only exists in my mind. - Regular Amanda
Anthony Salvagno
Open Notebook Science: Research in Real-Time -
Open Notebook Science: Research in Real-Time
Paul Graham
Cameron Neylon
.@ScientistMags Imagine a world where you got fired for _not_ making all records widely available. That's where the vision leads #sagecon
Heather Piwowar
RT @balapagos: I am convinced that if every lab had one #openscience project online, that'll be a positive step for the whole of science and the society.
Carl Boettiger
Can you use an Android phone to control Ubuntu like a remote? Yes, of course. #iloveubuntu
RT @mocost: 5 Great Scientists Who Believed Wildly Unscientific Things
Christopher Harris
the Na/K-pump provides motor networks with minute-long short-term memories (Zhang & Sillar, 2012, Curent Biology)
ωαřмaiden ❤Bassetmom❤
"You won’t like me when I’m angry. Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources." – The Credible Hulk
Oh - I wish there was a graphic that went with that. Been marking for last week & that wd be so great to use in my feedback video for the class... - Kathryn is a free elf
that is soooo awesome. stealing it - Eric Sizemore
<3, <3, <3 ... I was still obsessing with it when I went running this morning and was wondering whether I could find a She-Hulk graphic and use that.... - Kathryn is a free elf
Given that She-Hulk is a lawyer, I bet you could even find a picture of her doing research. - Jason P
RT @freesci: First coffee break is over. People tend to agree with overall direction of #openscience, but understandably argue about details. #NewSciPL
Wow: The Emergence of a Citation Cartel: @scholarlykitchn
Andrew Perry
Mosh: the mobile shell -
Anthony Salvagno
Someone asked me yesterday if they could use a picture of me for promotional purposes. I thought it best to just get a CC0 PD tattoo.
Daniel Mietchen
Why I won’t review a manuscript that follows up on the tennis ball effect -
I just received an invitation to review a manuscript describing a follow-up study on a sideline of my PhD thesis, the tennis ball effect that lets the membrane of unfertilized eggs of the frog Xenopus laevis restructure in a strong … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Heather Piwowar
RT @totalimpactdev: total-impact awarded $125k Sloan grant! #zomg
woooooooooooo! - RepoRat
Awesome! Congrats! - Christina Pikas from iPhone
Wooo-hoooooooo! - Joe
Congratulations! Well deserved, I think. - Chris M
Jason Priem
Our new article "Decoupling the scholarly journal" describes a new, Web-native #scholcomm system built on #altmetrics
Other ways to read this feed:Feed readerFacebook