Great idea. Perhaps it could be done under the purview of a journal ala the database issue - or maybe entirely independent and online? - Todd Harris

It could be a wiki, but since wikis don't have deadlines for things to contribute, things delay and delay (myself being also guilty). With publication hopefully in a journal this could be easier. When I recently compared presence of web 2.0 concepts in life sciences to medicine, I realized that we don't have many publications touching new technologies and new challenges of openness in area of life sciences. - Pawel Szczesny

Todd, yes I thought about peer-reviewed journal, also because of incentives to contribute :). - Pawel Szczesny

How about Database: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_jou... - Todd Harris

"Database" doesn't look bad, although I was thinking about something like PLoS One. I have envisioned an article that could summarize in few sections news and challenges of open access, online collaboration tools, ONS etc. This would be something along what Cameron is working on, although with larger scope and cyclic (collecting online science collaboration sites doesn't seem to end). I think it's about the time to push the topic to a peer-reviewed journal. - Pawel Szczesny

For example, I don't think there's in PubMed an article defining and describing Open Notebook Science. Jean-Claude, do you think it would be worth to rewrite your original post from 2006 (I cannot imagine such article without your name on it)? - Pawel Szczesny

Have you considered writing it as front matter in, for example, PLoS Comp. Biol.? Depending on what exactly you are thinking about writing, it could be either a Perspective or Review article. - Lars Juhl Jensen

Lars, sounds good. I have no experience with such articles and no idea where it could fit. I think such publication could offer increased visibility for the concept, but also point of reference when pushing the concept forward (for example when trying to convince somebody to agree on online collaboration, instead of emailing word files or constant travelling). - Pawel Szczesny

At ISMB last year I had a brief talk with BMC editor Matt Hodgkinson about the appropriateness of an Open Notebook Science article review in BMC Bioinformatics. He seemed interested in the idea then. Notes: http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2007... So that would be a possible venue. - Heather Piwowar

Thanks Heather, such ONS review is one of the things I'd like to see in some journal. It looks like there's enough examples by now :) - Pawel Szczesny

Pawel - sure I'd be interested in contributing to the ONS section. Good timing since our JoVE article should come out in a few weeks showing how we link to the lab notebook directly to support arguments. For a preview of the text component see current draft: http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/Paper03 - Jean-Claude Bradley

and yes I think PLoS ONE is a great vehicle - that's my plan for our next article - Jean-Claude Bradley

I agree that PLoS ONE would seem the obvious vehicle for a Science 2.0 paper. But I think that they only publish research articles and not reviews / perspectives. Correct me if I am wrong. - Lars Juhl Jensen

Correct. A Science 2.0 paper would be perfect for P-Comp Biology, or even PLoS-Biology, though. Pitch it to the editors and see what they say. - Bora Zivkovic

I'd be interested in participating in a paper on Science 2.0. PLoS is a good place to put it but try to balance it with Chemistry and not just Biology. Chemistry continues to be seen as a follower to Biology and leaving it our of the discussions won't help. Give it fair air... - Antony Williams

PLoS Biol seem pretty open minded. They said they'd have a look at the paper we are writing on the LaBLog - Cameron Neylon

Dear all willing to contribute, how do you see sectioning? After reading your comments I assume that at least three parts are must: open data, ONS and online collaboration. What else should go into such (white)paper? - Pawel Szczesny

There is an issue with all the '2.0' stuff. We actually need to get over the barrier of getting a first draft in place before the collaborative approach really works. Been lots of good ideas for writing articles in here but not much actual progress (and I am more guilty of that than most) - Cameron Neylon

Cameron, this is exactly what I try to do - push you all to publish finally the artists statement :) And while I'm willing to help as much as I can (I'll try to at least write a schema what could go in), I'm not interested in being on the author list - I'm interested in having this published. You can easily imagine how hard is to pitch S2.0 concept that wasn't "published" being a PhD student (with zero reputation) to somebody that doesn't even read blogs. - Pawel Szczesny

Yep - I know the feeling. Particularly having to explain what a blog is for the fifteenth time. Right, so we are working on a LaBLog paper. I do want to try and turn the 'facebook for scientists' rant into a paper or at least a commentary. We did start writing a document on open notebook science, perhaps we should get back to that? - Cameron Neylon

I think we're pretty much agreed in submitting to PLoS Biology. We now need to formally get stuck into this, prepare the list of authors etc.. I propose either (or both) Cameron or Jean-Claude as team leader. Will anyone second me? - Graham Steel

I would say that any formal document describing ONS should be lead by Jean-Claude in the first instance. It's his name after all :) - Cameron Neylon

Not sure how much I could contribute in actual writing, but even anyone wants a pair of eyes, someone to review the paper or bounce of ideas, you know where to find me. Can we start with a shortlist of topics to cover, that should help get things rolling. - Deepak Singh

Pawel, if you want to do something on Science 2.0 that covers a lot of ground. Cameron and I can certainly fill out the ONS section - maybe come up with a list of topics and see if you have enough contributors. - Jean-Claude Bradley

Jean-Claude, it's a good idea. I'll try to sketch the structure tonight and let's see if that makes sense. If it doesn't, it's not an issue - ONS alone would be great to see. - Pawel Szczesny

Pawel In terms of ONS itself, my current intention is detail the concept as part of our next paper on anti-malarial synthesis and testing. It looks like we have finally a complete story on that project. - Jean-Claude Bradley

Just to stir the pot a bit - I wonder if Nature would be interested in running a short article on open notebook science? I think the momentum is just about there for such a piece. It'd probably stir a lot of controversy (think PhysioProf x 1000), but also get other people interested. - Michael Nielsen

Michael, sounds great as long it's open access ;) But seriously I wonder why they didn't touch this topic so far. O'Reilly will cover the topic before Nature, even if both hear what is being talked about at SciFoo. - Pawel Szczesny

"I wonder why they didn't touch this topic so far" - I'd guess because no-one has approached them. There are many people at Nature well aware and well informed on ONS and related topics. - Michael Nielsen

I expected some editorial commentary, but you're right, maybe they wait for some initiative from ONS people. - Pawel Szczesny

@ J-C and Cameron. We and anyone else present interested can have a face to face about this (as I was already thinking about earlier today) at the Royal Institution in London in two weeks time. Off top of head, we could collectively submit something to Nature Precedings. That's OA as we all know and might be a good place to house our musings to a wider audience. Don't tell Timo though at least when he's sober. Oh bugger, since this is all open, he can find out about our cunning plan. - Graham Steel

Graham yes it would be good to discuss face to face since we are meeting shortly - and yes Precedings is a good first choice no matter what else is done afterwards - Jean-Claude Bradley

By the way thanks for starting this thread Pawel - I am using it to close my presentation tomorrow at the ACS (at 16:25) as an example of using software to network productively http://tinyurl.com/5bq49v - Jean-Claude Bradley

agree - a face to face meeting to hack out a structure followed by distributed writing could work - Cameron Neylon

I'd be interested, and should be at nature science blogging. If it's any help I tried to write a short summary a couple of months ago => http://www.michaelbarton.me.uk/2008... - Michael Barton

I should also say that I haven't been able to devote much time to keeping my notebook open, because I've been focusing on trying to get my PhD wrapped up in the next couple of months. I'm still interested in ONS though. - Michael Barton

Excellent. Given the hectic sched. of the Conference (any Conference really), it will be difficult to 'hack out the structure' of el project during it. I would suggest that Cameron, J-C, myself and hopefully, Michael do so post Conf. at a nearby pub/restaurant. We'll find out on the day where the attendees in general are heading off for post Conf. drinks and grab a table. @ Michael - you're not registered at an attendee according to the list. Please do however "come on down" on 30/8/08 if you can. - Graham Steel

I somewhat doubt that the organisers will 'turn away' people like yourself, although you should express your interest (to them directly) if you ain't done so already. That issue aside, we can obviously hook up with anyone interested post event. - Graham Steel

I would like to come back to the discussion (inspired by this: http://dx.doi.org/10... ) - did anybody has a chance to put some first draft after the blogging conference? I will be happy to help or to put one together, but I got impression that you'll discuss things in person :). - Pawel Szczesny

Thanks Pawel and Batts et al is indeed relevant and a damn fine Manu. At the Conf., unfortunately, I got tied up writing another Manu. with Peter M-R. I did set aside a table for discussion in the pub though. As far as I can gather, a discussion took place at Peter M-R's house the following day though. - Graham Steel

Lost this the first time I tried to post it. 2nd try. I think the Nature event a couple weeks ago (Social Notworking for Science) is relevant to this discussion. I attended via Second Life. It had sort of a 3-pronged approach. 1) What R the risks and costs (barriers of any sort) 2 the participation of senior scientists in social tech; 2) what R the benefits (& how do we let people know about them); 3) which social media are best suited with which science activities? Barriers was the bulk of the discussion. - Patricia F. Anderson