Science and the Public Parlay: Come a Little Bit Closer | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network 2013-02-20


"Rarer than hen’s teeth is a bill in Congress that has bipartisan support. But such legislation exists, and if passed would open up a semi-secret world. The law—the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act—would ensure that research articles based on taxpayer-supported projects are freely available online for the public to read. FASTR was among the hot topics at a session here devoted to digital tools for communicating science, on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation and Department of Energy fund more than $60 billion in research annually, resulting in about 90,000 papers—most of which are not accessible to the public (NIH has a public access policy that involves posting final journal manuscripts that arise from research it funds on the digital archive PubMed Central within 12 months), other than through big libraries. And those institutions lately are burdened by hefty subscription fees and public funding cuts. Under FASTR, agencies with large research budgets would have to make results of funded projects publicly available within six months of being published in a peer-reviewed journal. Also discussed at the session was a new, more public-oriented way to measure the impact of a published journal article. Currently, impact is gauged by the number of citations the paper receives in other publications. But information-science graduate student Jason Priem of the University of North Carolina, Carrboro (who emphatically supported FASTR), demonstrated ImpactStory, a free, open-source web application he co-created in 2011 to more fully capture the scholarly impact and reach of a scientist’s work. ImpactStory and other 'altmetric' efforts aggregate conventional citations with mentions of that work on Web sites such as Delicious, Facebook, Twitter, Slideshare, ScienceSeeker, Faculty of 1000, Mendeley, CiteULike and ORCID, as well as view counts for downloaded pdfs of papers. Rankings are computed and collated into an individual report that can be used in tenure and promotion considerations on campuses. Some audience members expressed wariness about putting energy and time into social media when academia has yet to fully value it. For the public’s part though, thanks to online media, a growing number of regular folks want in. Another presenter talked about a more entertaining way to bring the public closer to the process of science—by enlisting largely non-academics to play a game that can help scientists solve the convoluted structures of proteins. Seth Cooper, of the Center for Game Science at the University of Washington, noted that more than 300,000 people have participated in the game his group developed, called Foldit. The free online tool allows individuals and teams of users to compete for points to find the most compact, low-energy way to fold the irregular 3-D twists and turns of bonded molecular strands that form proteins. Foldit-affiliated scientists scored a big success in 2011 when a team of it gamers required just 10 days to solve the long-elusive structure of an enzyme from an AIDS-like virus found in rhesus monkeys..."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »
Gudgeon and gist » SPARC - Full Feed

Tags: oa.comment oa.mandates oa.usa oa.legislation oa.nih oa.open_science oa.crowd oa.impact oa.social_media oa.twitter oa.funders oa.lay oa.rankings oa.f1000 oa.facebook oa.orcid oa.altmetrics oa.mendeley oa.pmc oa.citeulike oa.slideshare oa.impactstory oa.fastr oa.scienceseeker oa.foldit oa.scienceonline oa.metrics oa.policies

Date tagged:

02/20/2013, 12:18

Date published:

02/20/2013, 07:18