J'ai acheté cet ouvrage en tant que chercheur en Sciences de l'information et de la communication. Si la thèse de l'auteur repose sur une idéologie affirmée de l'open science, l'ouvrage reflète bien la conception américaine actuelle des potentialités permises par la médiation numérique de la pratique scientifique.
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
26 internautes sur 26 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
A fascinating read and great introduction to the untapped power of open science28 octobre 2011
Steven J. Koch
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I read Nielsen's new book cover to cover on my flights to / from an Open Access Week event in Tucson this week and I give it my strongest recommendation for a pleasurable read about a crucial topic. I am a scientist and my students and I practice open science as much as possible--open notebook science, open protocols, open data, open proposals, etc. I have also seen the author, Michael Nielsen speak a couple times, and I have read many of his blog posts. So, before reading this book I didn't necessarily expect to learn much or certainly to be further convinced of the possibility of transforming science in this new era. From the moment I started reading, though, I was captivated. Many of the stories were not new to me (such as Galaxy Zoo or the polymath project), but I hadn't heard them in such detail before and I enjoyed learning a lot more about those successful crowd- or citizen-science projects. There were also many success and failure stories in open or collaborative science that I hadn't known about, such as the Microsoft-sponsored "Kasparov versus the world" chess event, or the research into how small groups can make bad decisions if the collaborative conditions aren't set up correctly. I learned a lot from these new stories, and remained captivated throughout.
In any of the topics that I am deeply familiar with, such as the current reward system for academic scientists (peer-reviewed publications are gold), I can say that Nielsen is spot-on and insightful. He ties together well all of the stories and descriptions of the scientific process and by the end, I think he's done a great job of convincing us all of his main point: We have a tremendous opportunity to transform and multiply the power of scientific research in the coming decades. But it won't happen automatically and there are some attitudes and policies that need to be changed to ensure we achieve this revolution. Nielsen gives concrete specific solutions to the barriers to the revolution. Furthermore, he gives advice to all of us as to what we can do as individuals to promote a change in science. My students and I in our teaching and research labs have taken the leap towards open science, and it has been tremendously rewarding. So I encourage you to read this book and to take your own small steps towards transforming science, whether you're a scientist, a fan of science, or an interested supporter of science (taxpayer!).
I rate this book 5 stars. Incidentally, I almost rated it with 4 stars because I was so frustrated at the black and white photos that I desperately wanted to see in color when I was on the plane! I realize this is a cost issue, but DARN! I was able to cancel this negative factor by adding in a bonus star for a truly excellent job Nielsen does with sourcing his information. He does such a good job that you can even read the "notes" section and understand what he's talking about and learn further information beyond the text. Kudos to Nielsen for an excellent book!
30 internautes sur 31 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Most Compelling Manifesto yet for Open Science25 octobre 2011
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I have read many books purchased at Amazon, but I have never written or submitted a review on any of them. This is the first book that I felt compelled on some level to comment on, as it really is the best manifesto for open science that I have read to date.
A "data web" or Wikipedia of science is a great idea. You cannot abolish journals in the next 10-20 years, given money and self-preservation issues for these journals. And, peer review is currently necessary to prevent bad apes from publishing crappy or fraudulent science, although maybe being able to comment and vote papers up or down Amazon-like could be made to work, as discussed in a recent blog by Joe Pickrell in regards to "Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals".
For now, it is a good idea to publish papers in Open Access journals which have a policy of publishing sound science with less emphasis on subjective measurements of importance. This way, anyone anywhere can read your paper and give you feedback and improve the overall project, so that your paper becomes an evolving piece of work. A scientific paper can and should be changed in Wikipedia style, with dated entries for changes made, so that the paper grows and changes with time. There are a couple of relatively new open access journals that could maybe support such a format, including Discovery Medicine and the Frontiers series of open-access journals.
I also think that scientists should deposit all data, analyses and conclusions onto a hopefully soon-to-be-created Wikipedia-based science portal, or maybe the Synapse Portal being created now by Sage Bionetworks. Give everyone on the planet who wants one a unique researcher ID. You don't have to reveal your researcher ID to anyone else, other than your tenure committee, boss, or whomever else you want or need to impress, so you remain anonymous to most people, if that is what you prefer. Thus, you can get credit (also known as micro-attribution) for all the comments, criticisms, and anything else you contribute on the Wikipedia site or on journal sites with comments on certain papers. If your value system is also that you are doing science to improve humanity, cure a disease, or advance fundamental knowledge, then you'll just add such comments to the Wiki site and onto online comments for published papers because that is the just the right thing to do.
The fundamental power of humans to get stuff done collectively is so incredibly obvious with Wikipedia already, but this is illustrated in other ways in this book in regards to the whole experiment with Fold-It.
People just hanging out in their home, with basically no knowledge of biochemistry, are helping to figure out protein folding. Give people a chance to contribute and they will do so.
Anyway, this is a fantastic book, highly recommended that everyone read this book! The author has done an amazing job of synthesizing quite a bit of information in his "call-to-arms" for open science.
Gholson J. Lyon, M.D. Ph.D. Research Scientist Utah Foundation for Biomedical Research
3 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
The Easy Human Potential Availed in this Book is Staggering22 janvier 2012
- Publié sur Amazon.com
This book really lines up with where some of our brightest minds would be well placed. It centers on Science and Math disciplines, but its application goes for beyond.
I have long believed that decision making methodologies are one of the places where there is the most easy ground to gain. We mostly do not make good decisions, we have no effective methodology, our biases run amock, facts don't matter near as much as they should and most people don't know or couldn't care less what that means in terms of results.
This book made me think more about how online tools could shepherd decision making in certain situations where something called praxis (not theory or opinion) could be agreed upon. Where opinions rule, collaboration may actually produce "collective stupidity". Collective intelligence really requires and shared and agreed upon base of principles and facts that clearly can define right from wrong to a degree.
But where answers really exist, software and web technologies provide us many great opportunities to advance. We can fairly easily and effectively experiment our way to a set of such tools by measure of results and extend.
This idea lends itself to itself. Imagine and Open Source Web enabled Collaboration Tool Set that develops a tool people can use to improve the tools themselves and then be used for other efforts bringing back more ideas for tools that work. There is something wonderful, especially in software development, to using your own tools to do the work. Here that strategy might really pay dividends in a very leveraged way. Anyone knows of such an effort, please comment as I would love to help with it.
This book is very much about online collaboration. I was more interested in the general potential of the notion than the science. I found it easy enough to focus on the part that really was of interest to me. Some may not.
Terrific work by the author and I am especially grateful for the reference list in the back of the book. I will go through it in detail.
2 internautes sur 2 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Enthusiastic, thoughtful advocacy of using Internet tools to change and accelerate the process of scientific discovery15 janvier 2012
- Publié sur Amazon.com
The author contends that the use of various Internet tools has shown the potential for improving scientific research, and that a better and more effective use of various Internet tools could significantly improve and accelerate the process of scientific research. More specifically, the author: (1) compares and contrasts traditional scientific research with contemporary scientific research; (2) notes the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of each approach; and (3) discusses various ways that Internet tools can be used to conduct, and improve the process of, scientific research. The author supports his contentions, arguments, and conclusions with references to historical and modern examples of scientific research. Any reader interested in further pursuing the subjects and ideas discussed in the book can find numerous citations in the book's "Selected Sources and Suggestions for Further Reading," "Notes," and "References" sections.
The author's willingness to recognize the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of various approaches to scientific research goes a long way toward preventing his book from being an unrealistic, speculative tract, or an unfair critique of traditional scientific research. Although the author enthusiastically advocates his views, he does not exaggerate the benefits of his proposals and does not ignore or downplay their weaknesses and limitations. Whether you find the author's contentions, arguments, and conclusions persuasive or not, the book is worth reading. It is a thoughtful and thought-provoking exploration of a timely and important topic.
1 internautes sur 1 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
From Intriguing Reportage/Analysis to Sentimental Exhortation31 mars 2014
Dennis B. Mulcare
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Overall, the book is quite interesting and the writing is exceptionally good. It is a provocative, informative, and worthwhile selection for general readership. More specifically, the book starts out strong, but then gets somewhat wearisome due to lack of depth and closure. PART 1 of this book is entitled “Amplifying Collective Intelligence”, and the cases and critiques of on-line research coordination are quite fascinating if not rather surprising. Moreover, the author’s analysis of the collaboration phenomena is impressive and convincing. PART 2, “Networked Science”, however, takes an unexpected trajectory. It really doesn’t describe networked science in much detail or focus beyond disparate problems and anecdotes. Especially in view of the strong first part, I was expecting a rather more definitive characterization or encompassing vision of networked science per se, as for example a coherent projection of the touted “new paradigm” of research.
In PART 1, the rather familiar concept of collective intelligence is rendered quite tangible and concrete. Through a variety of exemplars, many non-professional persons are shown to successfully perform substantive scientific work. Vital features of collaborative practice are described, the most impactful of which is that of “shared praxis”. It is noted to be the fundamental requirement for collective intelligence – basically having all collaborators working together toward a common goal via shared groundrules and methods. Furthermore, shared praxis is noted to have prevailed among professional mathematicians in working so well together in the Polymath Project.
Other operative factors in achieving collective intelligence include mutual access to relevant data in a tractable form, along with shared analysis tools that are suitable for assessing such data. A coordinative on-line site then manages the reconciliation and compilation of incremental work submissions from various participants. These work contributions are integrated into the evolving research baseline according to predefined progress criteria. To ensure that all participants are proceeding with the latest information, the on-line site continually reports the project status and baseline configuration. Accordingly, a single on-line environment for a given project is the hub that logs, synchronizes, and facilitates cooperative work among multiple remote participants. As recounted in Part 1, significant non-trivial research has been accomplished through such on-line cooperative efforts in a variety of domains, largely on ad hoc bases.
Apparently, such demonstrated capabilities and successful projects provided the motivation for the aspiration of extending or adapting comparable on-line facilities for scientific research in general. Regrettably, PART 2 of the book does not make a very strong case for pursuing such an agenda, nor does it even enunciate such an agenda explicitly. In particular, there is a lack of an integrated concept of networked science, say a strawman architecture, one that establishes a shareable tangible vision or an enabling framework. Furthermore, this part lacks: justification of the implicit vision; substance and depth regarding the means of practical realization; and a clear focal message. It would seem that the author considered the particular success stories of the first part to serve as justification and the model for the general extrapolation pursued in the second part. In any case, the ostensive aspirations of the latter part require appreciably more in the way of specificity, rationale, and justification.
Ultimately, the rather sketchy warrant advanced for scientific information and publication sharing seems to be largely sentimental and unduly idealistic. The book is heavy with admittedly intriguing vignettes, anecdotes, and exemplars, but quite lacking in programmatic or technological specifics. The last chapter is entitled “The Open Science Imperative”, but it does not exhibit a forceful sense of discursive convergence or thematic closure. What constitutes the imperative is essentially each reader’s own subjective construal of a largely insinuated realm of universal networked science. Its nature, pursuit, and value are barely examined directly in the book.
In all, this is a well-written book, but one that ideationally is weakly formed. Disappointingly, it does not cohere a substantive message, albeit it describes some appealing and proven concepts (architecture of attention/shared praxis/common tools). In short, the message stops short of a well-formed characterization of networked science that would enable the public scrutiny and deliberative refinement of the author’s intent. Accordingly, he needs to articulate an explicit if merely notional architecture for networked science, together with a outline plan for its realization. Only then need he critique its pending problems and potential benefits. Nevertheless, his still vague proposal clearly appears to hold promise, and his bringing the matter into broader consideration is itself a valuable contribution. In any case, networked science would seem to be an increasingly practical reality, even if it is evolving on a largely unorchestrated basis. Maybe that is the best of all courses anyway, as perhaps supported by ad hoc working groups to resolve logistical and interoperability issues.