Research Remix

May 15, 2011

#sameAs normal talks, but better

Filed under: Uncategorized — Heather Piwowar @ 1:28 pm

Why better? Because these science talks were in a Pub.

This meant that not only was there beer, there was informal seating, a diverse group of people, and no well-defined expectations. In short: a great chance to shake up our normal discussions and thoughts. Kaitlin Thaney and Matt Wood have been throwing fantastic #sameAs science and tech get-togethers in London since the fall, each in a pub and with an original theme.

I was lucky enough to not only attend (something I’ve want to do from thousands of miles away every time the #sameAs sessions are touted in twitter) but speak at the most recent one on Reputation, along with my awesome peers Gudmundur (“Mummi”) Thorisson and Jason Priem.  Mummi brought us all up to speed on ORCID, and Jason inspired and entertained –as he always does — on what academic publishing ought to look like now that we are out of the 17th century.

I took advantage of the atmosphere to actively contradict my usual patter about the importance of reputation incentives in encouraging data reuse.  I argued that a scientist’s risk-adverse concern for reputation serves as mainly a disincentive for data sharing. Therefore, we should take reputation out of the equation through the equalizing force of data sharing mandates. Slides (though without narration).  I do believe what I said, though I’m not sure it is a productive stance at the moment, so I doubt I’ll be saying it outside a pub anytime soon.

The question period across all the talks was the coolest part. Lots of questions, none of them shy, all of them interesting, lots of discussion with and among the audience. Then more networking and more beer.

Thanks, Kaitlin and Matt for throwing one of your parties when we were in town, it was a blast.

Seems like these #sameAs evenings are a great success in London and ought to be reproducible elsewhere…


  1. Heather, re slides: I did appreciate the “top dog” and other associations. I also have a question: Given that data sharing and citations are associated, then are data available on the operational costs of data sharing for a journal? Are the data sharing costs to be borne by the researchers? the data repositories? the publishers?

    -Bill Anderson (Associate Editor, CODATA Data Science Journal)

    Comment by Bill Anderson — May 16, 2011 @ 7:47 am

    • Hi Bill, great question. The main source I know for these estimates: Neil Beagrie, Lorraine Eakin-Richards and Todd Vision. Business Models and Cost Estimation: Dryad Repository Case Study, iPRES2010 Vienna, September 2010.

      Based on data in this paper, the Dryad data repository estimates it can archive data from 5,000 or 10,000 papers per year for $40 or $32 per paper, respectively. Who should pay these costs is a matter of ongoing debate in many circles, as I’m sure you know :)

      Comment by Heather Piwowar — May 27, 2011 @ 11:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: