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.

The Shocking Blue Green Theme. Blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,549 other followers

%d bloggers like this: