Research Remix

July 12, 2010

Recap of iEvoBio BoF on open science, data sharing & reuse, credit.

Filed under: conferences — Tags: , , , , — Heather Piwowar @ 10:52 am

The organizers of the recent iEvoBio meeting have asked for a summary of the Birds-of-a-Feather session.  I didn’t take notes, but here is a start:

About 10 people participated in the BoF that merged the three sign-up topics “open notebook science”, “data sharing and reuse”, and “data citations and a culture of credit.”

We had an energetic and wide-ranging discussion that included participation from people with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and opinions.  A few of the topics included:

  • the variants of open notebook science and how they are supported (or undersupported, in some cases) by Open Wet Ware
  • the need to publish minimal data slices to prevent scooping, particularly for some datatypes, and how it can lead to misinterpretation of the data by others
  • whether data-producing authors should be contacted as collaborators for reuse
  • the fact that credit is essential, yet so is remembering that our jobs are fundamentally to contribute to scientific progress
  • support for dynamic CV that included up-to-date reuse metrics for articles, data, and nontraditional outputs.

If you were there, do you have things to add?  Respond in the comments or on twitter with #ievobioBof .

I learned a lot from the perspectives of others in the discussion:  looking forward to more conversations at future meetings.


  1. Sounds like an interesting session – I would add these points as important to ONS:
    1) Generating self-contained archives periodically that can be cited when appropriate
    2) Abstracting the information in the notebook to a form that can be read by machines
    3) Giving multiple entry points to the information contained in the notebooks (Google Scholar, Google, institutional repositories, Nature Precedings etc.)

    Comment by Jean-Claude Bradley — July 13, 2010 @ 7:58 am

  2. Heather!

    There was also some talk about the efficacy of allowing comments/edits to web-published scientific papers (i.e. things in PLoSONE), but the seeming lack of participation. The idea of keeping a document ‘live’ after publishing is enticing, but we don’t seem to have the infrastructure for it yet…


    Comment by andrea — July 15, 2010 @ 2:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: