peer review and science2.0

81
Peer Review and Science2.0: blogs, wikis and social networking sites Jean-Claude Bradley March 15, 2010 Guest Lecture for “Peer Review Culture in Scholarly Publication and Grantmakingcourse at Drexel University Associate Professor of Chemistry Drexel University

Upload: jean-claude-bradley

Post on 06-May-2015

1.762 views

Category:

Education


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Jean-Claude Bradley presents on "Peer Review and Science2.0: blogs, wikis and social networking sites" as a guest lecturer for the “Peer Review Culture in Scholarly Publication and Grantmaking” course at Drexel University. The main thrust of the presentation is that peer review alone is not capable of coping with the increasing flood of scientific information being generated and shared. Arguments are made to show that providing sufficient proof for scientific findings does scale and weakens the tragedy of the trusted source cascade.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Peer Review and Science2.0

Peer Review and Science2.0: blogs, wikis and social

networking sites

Jean-Claude Bradley

March 15, 2010

Guest Lecture for “Peer Review Culture in Scholarly Publication and Grantmaking” course at

Drexel University

Associate Professor of ChemistryDrexel University

Page 2: Peer Review and Science2.0

What Peer Review Does

1. Provides authors with a publication format that counts in academia.

2. Assists editors to determine if the findings of an article are consistent with the data provided and commonly accepted scientific models.

3. Assists editors in attempting to provide a consistent style and focus for a particular journal. (not fundamental – see PLoS ONE)

Page 3: Peer Review and Science2.0

What Peer Review does not do

Verify the analysis of all the raw data supporting an article.

Page 4: Peer Review and Science2.0

Even if peer-reviewing tried to take on the responsibility of verifying all the raw data, there are not enough

resources to cope.

Page 5: Peer Review and Science2.0

TRUST

PROOF

A solution that scales: Open Notebook Science

Page 6: Peer Review and Science2.0

How bad is our current system? Try to find the solubility EGCG?

Page 7: Peer Review and Science2.0

=2.3 g/L

WTF?!

Page 8: Peer Review and Science2.0

The End of the Chain of Provenance

Page 9: Peer Review and Science2.0

The Tragedy of the Trusted Source Cascade

Page 10: Peer Review and Science2.0

The NaH oxidation controversy

Page 11: Peer Review and Science2.0

Information spreads quickly through the blogosphere

Page 12: Peer Review and Science2.0

15% NMR yield

Page 13: Peer Review and Science2.0
Page 14: Peer Review and Science2.0

Khalid Mirza and Marshall Moritz

Page 15: Peer Review and Science2.0
Page 16: Peer Review and Science2.0

Top results on a Google search

Page 17: Peer Review and Science2.0

The Scandal of Bell’s Lab Notebook

Page 18: Peer Review and Science2.0

Motivation: Faster Science, Better Science

Page 19: Peer Review and Science2.0

Open Notebook Science Logos (Andy Lang, Shirley Wu)

Sharing: how much and when

Page 20: Peer Review and Science2.0

There are NO FACTS, only measurements embedded

within assumptions

Open Notebook Science maintains the integrity of data

provenance by making assumptions explicit

Page 21: Peer Review and Science2.0

The solubility of 4-chlorobenzaldehyde

Page 22: Peer Review and Science2.0

The Log makes Assumptions Explicit

Page 23: Peer Review and Science2.0

The Rationale of Findings Explicit

Page 24: Peer Review and Science2.0

Raw Data Made Public

Splatter?

Some liquid

Page 25: Peer Review and Science2.0

YouTube for demonstrating experimental YouTube for demonstrating experimental set-upset-up

Page 26: Peer Review and Science2.0

Calculations Made Public on Google Spreadsheets

Page 27: Peer Review and Science2.0

Revision History on Google Spreadsheets

Page 28: Peer Review and Science2.0

Wiki Page History

Page 29: Peer Review and Science2.0

Comparing Wiki Page Versions

Page 30: Peer Review and Science2.0

Proof of Purity with interactive NMR spectrum using JSpecView and

JCAMP-DX

Page 31: Peer Review and Science2.0

Linking to Molecules in Chemistry Databases

Page 32: Peer Review and Science2.0

Experimental Spectra and User-Deposited Data on ChemSpider

Page 33: Peer Review and Science2.0

(Andy Lang, Tony Williams)

Open Data JCAMP spectra for education

(Andy Lang, Tony Williams, Robert Lancashire)

Page 34: Peer Review and Science2.0

Database Curation via Game Playing

Page 35: Peer Review and Science2.0

Over 100,000 spectrum views so far - worldwide

Page 36: Peer Review and Science2.0

Link Spectral Game to Open Educational Content

Page 37: Peer Review and Science2.0

The Ugi reaction: can we predict precipitation?

Can we predict solubility in organic solvents?

Page 38: Peer Review and Science2.0

Crowdsourcing Solubility Data

Page 39: Peer Review and Science2.0

ONS Submeta Award Winners

Page 40: Peer Review and Science2.0

ONS Challenge Judges

Page 41: Peer Review and Science2.0

Teaching Lab: Brent Friesen (Dominican University)

Page 42: Peer Review and Science2.0

Solubility Experiment List

Page 43: Peer Review and Science2.0

Solubilities collected in a Google Spreadsheet

Page 44: Peer Review and Science2.0

Rajarshi Guha’s Live Web Query using Google Viz API

Page 45: Peer Review and Science2.0

WE ARE HEREWE ARE HERE

How can the scientific process become more automated?

Page 46: Peer Review and Science2.0

Semi-Automated Semi-Automated Measurement of solubility via Measurement of solubility via

web service analysis of web service analysis of JCAMP-DX files JCAMP-DX files

(Andy Lang)(Andy Lang)

Page 47: Peer Review and Science2.0

Solubility Measurement Requests: DoSol sheet

•Outlier Bot: flags measurements with high standard deviation to mean ratios•Google Analytics queries – new solvent/solute searches•Solubility request form – researcher in Israel requesting pyrene in acetonitrile solubility for environmental soil contamination study•Application based models – high priority Ugi reactants

Page 48: Peer Review and Science2.0

Solubility Prediction (Andy Lang’s Model)

Page 49: Peer Review and Science2.0

Understanding in addition to empirical modeling

Missed in a prior publication on

solubility for this compound

Page 50: Peer Review and Science2.0

Data provenance: From Wikipedia to…

Page 51: Peer Review and Science2.0

…the lab notebook and raw data

Page 52: Peer Review and Science2.0

Including links to the literature

Page 53: Peer Review and Science2.0

•Concentration (0.4, 0.2, 0.07 M)•Solvent (methanol, ethanol, acetonitrile, THF)•Excess of some reagents (1.2 eq.)

How does Open Notebook Science fit with traditional publication?

Page 54: Peer Review and Science2.0

Paper written on Wiki

Page 55: Peer Review and Science2.0

References to papers, blog posts, lab notebook pages, raw

data

Page 56: Peer Review and Science2.0

Paper on Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE)

Page 57: Peer Review and Science2.0

Pre-print on Nature Precedings

Page 58: Peer Review and Science2.0

ChemSpider Automated Mark-up of Chemical Names

Page 59: Peer Review and Science2.0

BUT…

Open Access: the Choice that Keeps Giving.. and Giving…

Page 60: Peer Review and Science2.0

Beware of your addiction to metrics: redundancy will reduce

them

Page 61: Peer Review and Science2.0

Cameron Neylon’s NotebooksCameron Neylon’s Notebooks

Other Open NotebooksOther Open Notebooks

Page 62: Peer Review and Science2.0

Anthony Salvagno’s Notebook Anthony Salvagno’s Notebook (Steve Koch group)(Steve Koch group)

Page 63: Peer Review and Science2.0

Archiving Open Notebook Science Projects

What is the role of the librarians, researchers and other parties?

What are options for citing?

Page 64: Peer Review and Science2.0

Librarians and Science 2.0"The Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit that was founded to build an Internet library, with the purpose of offering permanent access for researchers, historians, and scholars to historical collections that exist in digital format."

The internet Archive is not practical for practitioners of 

Open Notebook Science or 

Science 2.0 

Page 65: Peer Review and Science2.0

Good concept but.....

Page 66: Peer Review and Science2.0

Most pages look like this....

Page 67: Peer Review and Science2.0

Where We Began: The ONS backup spreadsheet and ONSPreserver

Page 68: Peer Review and Science2.0

Publishing Google Spreadsheets as XLS

Page 69: Peer Review and Science2.0

Where We Are Now

Page 70: Peer Review and Science2.0

ONSArchive: Semi-Automated Snapshot of the Entire Scientific Record

Page 71: Peer Review and Science2.0

Snapshot is Self-Contained and Live on the Internet

Page 72: Peer Review and Science2.0

Lulu.com Data Disks

Page 73: Peer Review and Science2.0

DSpace – Handle (hdl)

Page 74: Peer Review and Science2.0

Lulu.com - ISBN

Google Spreadsheet

s

Google Documents

Web Services

ChemSpider & Indiana

Real Time Linear Regression, Unit

Conversions, Style Sheet, etc

Data Book

Page 75: Peer Review and Science2.0
Page 76: Peer Review and Science2.0
Page 77: Peer Review and Science2.0

Bradley, Jean-Claude; Lang Andrew. Solubilities Summary Sheet. Open Notebook Science Challenge. 2009-12-11. URL:http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plwwufp30hfq0udnEmRD1aQ&output=xls. Accessed: 2009-12-11. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5lx5ry3BV)

Page 78: Peer Review and Science2.0

Book Editions on Nature Precedings

Page 79: Peer Review and Science2.0

More about the ONSarchive project:

Page 80: Peer Review and Science2.0

1) Accept that reporting science in real time is not always pretty. Do your best to avoid and correct mistakes as soon as possible but mistakes and ambiguous results will happen on the way to completing any scientific project. Just be honest about your level of certainty when discussing preliminary results.

2) Provide as much raw data as is reasonable and frame it in such a way that other researchers can understand what you have done and follow your conclusions based on your data without having to ask you questions.

3) Don't wait for the perfect technological solutions before starting to share. General purpose wikis can serve as an excellent starting point for an Open Lab Notebook.

4) Don't wait for the perfect data structuring scheme before starting to share. First share for human readability - you can always restructure the data later for machine readability.

Open Notebook Science Tips - I

Page 81: Peer Review and Science2.0

5) Periodically write summaries of your research progress in the form of milestones or significant challenges in a format that non-specialists can understand. A blog is a good platform for this. If you link to specific lab notebook pages from your summaries, experts can always click through to dig deeper.

6) Create snapshot archives of your notebooks and supporting raw data files. You can use these as backups and as a convenient way to cite a particular version of your entire research project.

7) Cite specific lab notebook pages and archives when publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

Open Notebook Science Tips - II