Science 2.0 (Science 2.0) - a new tool or a big risk?
The World Wide Web is growing at an incredible speed, transforming human activity in all areas. Business, methods of its management, methods of marketing and management are changing.
The plane of personal communications of people is also changing: web-van technology has begun to unite interest groups. Classmates, professionals from different areas, travelers, consumers of certain goods and services, just people eager for communication and new acquaintances - all these groups are moving and successfully developing in the “ network world of the second version ”, in which almost every day there are new ideas and trends relating to as the development of communication technologies and services, and their use in business.
Fixing these trends allows you to catch the spirit of the times, understand how at first glance separate phenomena and facts are interconnected and affect people's lives, and find new solutions for creating and promoting brands [1] .
These wonderful opportunities must come to science. To come for its development, public presentation and promotion of knowledge, without which the country simply risks being left without scientists [2] . In fact, they should become one of the main tools for the "rebranding" of science.
The need for science to master the modern communication space and “new trends” is long overdue. Scientists and researchers should get the whole arsenal of social networking features.
')
It is believed that traditional scientific publications act more like entries in the cadastre of intellectual property than as a way of communication. Thus, there is the problem of disseminating scientific information, the problem of researchers discussing their reports and publications.
In one of the big studies of communication in psychology, the American Psychological Association (APA) has come to a rather unexpected result.
It turns out that articles distributed through several thousand copies of the journal are read by only a few hundred subscribers [3] . And the social network of people of science is able to disseminate scientific information to any number of its participants constantly and accessible - 24 hours a day.
Today we can say that there is already a small but growing number of researchers using social networks, blocks, and Wiki in their work. And although their efforts are quite scattered - this experience shows that this kind of Science 2.0 is much more productive.
What is a social network in its current form is unlikely to explain even the most intelligent sociologist. In this concept both sociological and technological features have long been mixed. From sociology, it took the idea of ​​social coordination in the system of connections between people. So, in a social network, firstly, there are direct and indirect links between its elements, and secondly, there is no explicit hierarchy. Scientists unanimously note that the participants of a social network are equivalent and are united not only by the subject of general interest, but also by the connections themselves [4] . "Science is evolving not only because scientists are experimenting, but also because they are discussing these experiments," explains Christopher Surridge, editor of the web-based journal Public Library of Science On-Line Edition ( PLoS ONE ).
The exchange of ideas and data acts as a powerful tool for finding the truth and correcting mistakes, which, based on the accumulated experience of colleagues - other scientists and researchers, creates new knowledge. This communication allows you to deploy your research, while having access to materials on this topic published earlier. It offers good benefits to society in the form of accelerating the development of new goods and services for the greater competitiveness of the national economy.
Of course, many scientists are very skeptical of such openness and will not particularly rush to share their thoughts and research. From this point of view, Science 2.0 seems dangerous: the use of blogs and social networks for serious work is fraught with the theft of ideas, their publications and what is most offensive is their implementations.
However, which side to look at: perhaps there will be no competition, but multilateral cooperation. The atmosphere of criticism of scientific postulates will not allow to publish false research, while the texts that stand will be at the peak of the rating and cited, confirming the value of real knowledge. The contribution of each researcher in solving scientific problems will be well noticeable.
In addition, the interest of business representatives, potential customers is not long in coming - it is also a platform for the conclusion of contracts for research and development. A practical example: the laboratory conducts research and develops new drugs, publishing its experiments in a scientific social network. The materials are freely indexed by search engines, and accordingly are easily accessible to their users who are interested in this particular topic. By all means, people applying forces in one direction will want to work together. There will be an interest in obtaining results with less time and cost. One of the laboratories may offer to verify the calculations, the other - to conduct part of the experiments on its equipment, there are opportunities for conducting brainstorming. Thus, an effective network of collaborating laboratories appears.
In principle, scientists must find a mechanism and go to Science 2.0, it will be a completely natural process, only a matter of time remains. After all, from the time of Galileo and Newton , scientists created their knowledge of the world, from the "well of sources", the contributions of many researchers, and then improved them through open discussion.
Adopting a Web 2.0 philosophy will require major changes in the culture of academic science. The real significance of the achievements of modern web technologies lies in their ability to focus on priority developments, community openness, and an objective assessment of published materials. The urgent task of modern scientists is not only to write journal publications, but also to facilitate scientific communication, which can change dramatically due to the achievements of the Internet.
Radonett - http://radonett.habrahabr.ru/
1. AdWorker.ru: Trends-2008
2. Andrey Tikhonov. There will be science, there will be popularity
3. Informal groups and communication networks . (Translated from English. A.A. Deryabin, 1998).
4. Sergey Skripnikov. Network 2.0 related
In preparing the article used materials from the site sciam.com
The plane of personal communications of people is also changing: web-van technology has begun to unite interest groups. Classmates, professionals from different areas, travelers, consumers of certain goods and services, just people eager for communication and new acquaintances - all these groups are moving and successfully developing in the “ network world of the second version ”, in which almost every day there are new ideas and trends relating to as the development of communication technologies and services, and their use in business.
Fixing these trends allows you to catch the spirit of the times, understand how at first glance separate phenomena and facts are interconnected and affect people's lives, and find new solutions for creating and promoting brands [1] .
These wonderful opportunities must come to science. To come for its development, public presentation and promotion of knowledge, without which the country simply risks being left without scientists [2] . In fact, they should become one of the main tools for the "rebranding" of science.
The need for science to master the modern communication space and “new trends” is long overdue. Scientists and researchers should get the whole arsenal of social networking features.
')
It is believed that traditional scientific publications act more like entries in the cadastre of intellectual property than as a way of communication. Thus, there is the problem of disseminating scientific information, the problem of researchers discussing their reports and publications.
In one of the big studies of communication in psychology, the American Psychological Association (APA) has come to a rather unexpected result.
It turns out that articles distributed through several thousand copies of the journal are read by only a few hundred subscribers [3] . And the social network of people of science is able to disseminate scientific information to any number of its participants constantly and accessible - 24 hours a day.
Today we can say that there is already a small but growing number of researchers using social networks, blocks, and Wiki in their work. And although their efforts are quite scattered - this experience shows that this kind of Science 2.0 is much more productive.
What is a social network in its current form is unlikely to explain even the most intelligent sociologist. In this concept both sociological and technological features have long been mixed. From sociology, it took the idea of ​​social coordination in the system of connections between people. So, in a social network, firstly, there are direct and indirect links between its elements, and secondly, there is no explicit hierarchy. Scientists unanimously note that the participants of a social network are equivalent and are united not only by the subject of general interest, but also by the connections themselves [4] . "Science is evolving not only because scientists are experimenting, but also because they are discussing these experiments," explains Christopher Surridge, editor of the web-based journal Public Library of Science On-Line Edition ( PLoS ONE ).
The exchange of ideas and data acts as a powerful tool for finding the truth and correcting mistakes, which, based on the accumulated experience of colleagues - other scientists and researchers, creates new knowledge. This communication allows you to deploy your research, while having access to materials on this topic published earlier. It offers good benefits to society in the form of accelerating the development of new goods and services for the greater competitiveness of the national economy.
Of course, many scientists are very skeptical of such openness and will not particularly rush to share their thoughts and research. From this point of view, Science 2.0 seems dangerous: the use of blogs and social networks for serious work is fraught with the theft of ideas, their publications and what is most offensive is their implementations.
However, which side to look at: perhaps there will be no competition, but multilateral cooperation. The atmosphere of criticism of scientific postulates will not allow to publish false research, while the texts that stand will be at the peak of the rating and cited, confirming the value of real knowledge. The contribution of each researcher in solving scientific problems will be well noticeable.
In addition, the interest of business representatives, potential customers is not long in coming - it is also a platform for the conclusion of contracts for research and development. A practical example: the laboratory conducts research and develops new drugs, publishing its experiments in a scientific social network. The materials are freely indexed by search engines, and accordingly are easily accessible to their users who are interested in this particular topic. By all means, people applying forces in one direction will want to work together. There will be an interest in obtaining results with less time and cost. One of the laboratories may offer to verify the calculations, the other - to conduct part of the experiments on its equipment, there are opportunities for conducting brainstorming. Thus, an effective network of collaborating laboratories appears.
In principle, scientists must find a mechanism and go to Science 2.0, it will be a completely natural process, only a matter of time remains. After all, from the time of Galileo and Newton , scientists created their knowledge of the world, from the "well of sources", the contributions of many researchers, and then improved them through open discussion.
Adopting a Web 2.0 philosophy will require major changes in the culture of academic science. The real significance of the achievements of modern web technologies lies in their ability to focus on priority developments, community openness, and an objective assessment of published materials. The urgent task of modern scientists is not only to write journal publications, but also to facilitate scientific communication, which can change dramatically due to the achievements of the Internet.
Radonett - http://radonett.habrahabr.ru/
1. AdWorker.ru: Trends-2008
2. Andrey Tikhonov. There will be science, there will be popularity
3. Informal groups and communication networks . (Translated from English. A.A. Deryabin, 1998).
4. Sergey Skripnikov. Network 2.0 related
In preparing the article used materials from the site sciam.com
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/18807/
All Articles