research20

Los investigadores ya no son lo que eran…

Posted on Actualizado enn

Todavía está en el recuerdo de muchos, la idea de un investigador: un ser que, encerrado en su laboratorio, hacía “cosas raras” e incomprensibles para los mundanos… Un ser desconocido del que muy poco sabíamos y que solo veíamos muy de vez en cuando y, en general, no sabíamos qué hacía a menos que realizara el descubrimiento del siglo o ganara un premio Nobel. Bueno, quizás exagero un poco, pero vamos…no tanto…

arquetipo_del_cientifico_loco

Por suerte, los tiempos han cambiado y una nueva (o no tan nueva) hornada de investigadores, nos están deleitando con la ciencia. Estamos descubriendo auténticos divulgadores de la ciencia que, incluso, nos hacen reír con ella. Sí, si, reír, ¡es fascinante!.

No hay más que ver algunos ejemplos que a mi me llaman bastante la atención, como son: Joaquín SevillaJ.M. López Nicolas,  y J. M. Mulet, por poner algunos ejemplos.

Por supuesto, todos ellos tienen su blog, su cuenta en twitter, etc…siendo muy visibles en las redes sociales, premisa indiscutible de esta nueva forma de divulgar ciencia.

A Joaquín Sevilla lo conozco personalmente y qué decir tiene que, a parte de ser un gran profesional y persona, sabe divulgar la ciencia de una forma muy amena y entretenida.

Ya que hablo de Joaquín, empezaré con él y con su iniciativa de ciencia en el Bar, de la que ya he hablado otras veces, pero es que me parece una genial iniciativa a la par que original y divertida.

En ella, intenta desubicar la divulgación de la ciencia de sus lugares más habituales: el aula, el laboratorio o el escenario de un congreso, y realiza divulgación en un Bar, sí, en un Bar. Aquí tenéis un ejemplo:

¿interesante, no?

Otro caso claro es la última edición de Naukas.

Naukas (antes Amazings.es) es el proyecto de Miguel Artime (Maikelnai’s), Antonio Martínez(Fogonazos), José Cuesta (Inercia Creativa) y Javier Peláez (La Aldea Irreductible) quienes han unido sus fuerzas para realizar la mayor plataforma online de divulgación científica en español. Cada año, organizan una conferencia llena de ponencias cortas llenas de escepticismo, ciencia y humor ofrecido por divulgadores relacionado con la plataforma Naukas, según ellos mismos lo definen.

La pasada edición que ha tenido lugar el 16 y 17 de septiembre en Bilbao, es un claro ejemplo de esta nueva marea de investigadores que, ¡por fin, nos hacen entender esto de la Ciencia!

A destacar dos de las presentaciones, entre las muchas que hubo que son, precisamente, las de Joaquín Sevilla, que explicó cómo vuelan los aviones. No se le ocurrió nada más, que solo salir, empezar a lanzar aviones de papel a ver cual volaba más alto. ¡Obviamente, captó de inmediato la atención de todos los asistentes!

Por otro lado, J.M. López Nicolás, deleitó a los asistentes con algo tan llamativo como explicar la física a través del Fútbol, si, si, del Fútbol. Muy interesante:

Podéis ver la presentación aquí

Por último, hablar del “inclasificable” (desde el cariño), J. M. Mulet, donde nos acerca la ciencia desde una visión mucho más crítica y, a veces, transgresora, pero desde un peculiar sentido del humor que realmente llama la atención y encuentro también muy interesante.

Mulet, ha escrito varios libros sobre alimentos transgénicos, sobre las verdades relacionadas con los productos “milagrosos” (que muchas veces no lo son), que nos intentan vender, etc.. la verdad que muy interesante. ¡Yo ya le he comprado más de un libro!.

Y esto solo son algunos ejemplos de como ha cambiado el mundo de la Ciencia y cómo nuestros investigadores, hacen grandes esfuerzos para que su trabajo llegue a todo el mundo, a mi personalmente me parece genial y felicito a todos estos “nuevos divulgadores” por el excelente trabajo que están haciendo, a la vez que aplaudo iniciativas como Naukas.!!

 

 

Anuncios

The way to Open Science

Posted on Actualizado enn

Science is broadly understood as collecting, analyzing, publishing, reanalyzing, critiquing, and reusing data. Proponents of open science identify a number of barriers that impede or dissuade the broad dissemination of scientific data. 

These include financial paywalls of for-profit research publishers, restrictions on usage applied by publishers of data, poor formatting of data or use of proprietary software that makes it difficult to re-purpose, and cultural reluctance to publish data for fears of losing control of how the information is used.

One of the main goals of the Open Science movement is the open Access of the research publications and data. In this way, the European University Association (EUA) agreed at its Council meeting on 23 October 2015 on the development of a roadmap to assist European universities in the transition to Open Access (OA). This initiative follows on from a recommendation made by EUA’s Expert Group on Science 2.0/Open Science.

They defined a roadmap that focuses primarily on OA to research publications, as in the broader field of Open Science most progress has been accomplished in this area. It is intended as the first step in a series of initiatives that EUA and its Expert Group are developing to address the most pressing implications of Open Science, including, inter alia, OA to research data, copyright, data protection and text and data mining; new models of evaluation and quality assessment; digital literacy and awareness.

The main objectives of EUA strives to achieve this vision in the next three years by concentrating on the following areas:

· Fostering structured dialogue among all stakeholders – especially scientists, universities, research funding and performing organisations, libraries, politicians and publishers;
· Promoting and supporting the adoption of OA policies, infrastructures and initiatives (repositories, institutional publishing initiatives – both for journals and monographs) by European universities;
· Encouraging the development and establishment of advanced scientific recognition and research assessment systems – including scientometrics and altmetrics, quality evaluation in OA, career progression of scientists and rigorous quality assurance of conventional and novel research outputs;
· Addressing intellectual property rights and copyright policies for various outputs, including publications, research data, learning materials and patents; · Considering alternative and sustainable OA business models;
· Promoting access, use and sharing of research publications and data, including text and data mining (TDM), tailored to different stakeholders, including researchers at different stages in their career;
· Encouraging, supporting and eventually monitoring the establishment of comprehensive standards for institutional OA policies concerning research publications and teaching materials. Priority actions EUA will focus its efforts in the next twelve months

I think it’s a very interesting initiative, and necessarily. Nowadays, OpenAccess is a reality that we must take into account, but there are already some issues to make it totally possible, related to the quality of research, paywalls, peer review and so on, but no one denies that Open Access and thus, open Science are the new research models in this digital and globalized world.

Can see more information about the initiative here:



Reputation mechanisms in Science 2.0

Posted on Actualizado enn

I have read a lot about reputation in science, this is not a new topic. Traditional scientific reputation is about cites and impact of publications in major scientific journals, but if we think about what we call Science 2.0, digital science or open science, maybe could be something new. How we can measure scientific reputation in this new digital scenario? 
First of all, I think that it’s time to rethink, time to change and it’s clear that science is changing, at least the way we do science, or the perception of the science, and this is mainly because of the new technologies. New digital technologies make available to researchers powerful tools that allow them support their tasks, foster collaborations, promote dissemination and enhance the reputation of the researchers..

But, and always is a ‘but’, I think there are actually too many tools and there is not yet a clear or unique strategy to promote this new way of scientific reputation, in my opinion.
I have read a very interesting report: JRC science and policy repot, that talk about:
Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars. This report has confirmed my impression that there are too many tools actually.

Anyway, is a very interesting report explaining that conventional indicators fall short of reflecting adequately contributors’ reputation and impact in the field of stablishing and measuring scholarly reputation. Also emphasizes the importance of science and talk about Science 2.0 that is chanching the conventional ways of the collaboration of the general public in the creation, dissemination and transferring of the knowledge.

The report also introduces the Boyer’s model of scholarship adapted to the digital age:
– The scholarship of research, creation of the knowledge
– The scholarship of integration, interdisciplinary research
– The scholarship of application, research transfer to solve societal/practical problems
– The scholarship of teaching, transfer knowledge to new generations
– The scholarship of co-creation, involve other actors in the research process

In each of these activities, reputation plays a very important role. In the scholarship of research is clear that a researcher need acquire ideas from other scholars, evaluates the validity of ideas for further exploration and for subsequent research, and in turn to disseminate the results to the scientific community. In this way, the nature of research work commands the need for recognition of the value of one’s work by others in the field.

Reputation is not only the result of the research process, also is the result of its three main outcomes: some kind of publication (journal article, book, report…), the impact on others’ research or knowledge, on industry, in society or the way we think about ourselves as a human beings, and the enhancing of the reputation of the researcher (invitations, awards and promotion, and to obtain further funding). But how this is archived? Weller (2011) talks about:

Planning (using social networks and blogs, the researcher establish the question), Collect data (online information sources), analyses (using Google analytics, SurveyMonkey, data visualization…) and reflect (blog posts and video interviews). 

Then there is the dissemination of research results, and not only through books and journals but also essays, blogs, podcasts, videoclips… will also be seen as perfectly viable means for disseminating ideas. 

By now, apart from publishing their research data, a small but growing number of scientists even practice Open-Notebook Science (ONS), where researchers post their laboratory  notebooks on the internet for public scrutiny. Another way is the networking and collaborating (if the researcher collaborate with similar colleagues, can obtain a great number of cites)… Anyway , although there are other forms of peer review and citation analysis and impact through new digital tools and services, it is clear that the researcher remains evaluated by traditional metrics, but this will be change…

The scholarship of integration seeks to critically analyze, interpret, draw together and bring new insight to bear on original research, so this integrative mode of research, combines perspectives, information, data, techniques, tools, concepts and/or theories that usually cannot be solved by a single disciplinary approach, so it is important to interact with and learning from people with different backgrounds. The traditional academic career incentives do no stimulate interdisciplinary research, so this is one king of research where new science 2.0 can help more. 

The scholarship of application want to link theory and practice through dynamic interaction with various stakeholders. So want to communicate the knowledge to others, and has four types: knowledge exchange among scientists, knowledge exchange from scientists to public, knowledge exchanged iteratively from scientists to non-scientific public and vice-versa and knowledge exchange between scientific knowledge and local knowledge where are mutual respected. In this model, citizens work actively with science knowledge: asking questions, with research agendas, through consultations, and so on…

In the scholarly of teaching, there is a new model where research and teaching are both viewed as ctivities where individuals and groups negotiate meanings, building knowledge within a social context. And finally in the scholarship of co-creation, through Science 2.0, produces the discovery of new knowledge and the processes of participatory learning intertwine at time to form a whole.

There are many tools that can measure the reputation that a researcher can acquire through its researcher works, in this way there are: altmetric services, citizen science platforms, code repositories,data repositories, discipline-specific academic social networking services, electronic laboratory notebooks, multidisciplinary academic social networking services, open peer review systems, professional  social networking services, reference management tools with social media feature, review systems for MOOCs, social learning platforms.

In this way, ResearchGate and Academia support the reputational purposes of the larger number of activities. But we can see, tweeter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mendeley and other tools…

In summary, and is my summary, with traditional model of reputation, a researcher can be well valued mainly for their peers and colleagues. With Science 2.0, a researcher can (and must) create its digital identity and can be recognized not only by a major number of interdisciplinary colleagues, but also by the society, and in the case of peer review, if a researcher perform an interdisciplinary research, the peer-review tasks in the traditional way could be more complex, but not in science 2.0. This report talks about the importance of the research openness and I agree. It’s time to use the internet potential to increase the visibility of the research and its results: collaborate, share, network, disseminate, teach…..

What do you think about scientific 2.0 reputation? contributions? experiences?

Access JRC report here