The document discusses challenges with the current state of scientific research and proposes ways to leverage the power of the open web to improve science. It notes that current systems are designed to create friction rather than enable open collaboration. The document advocates for adopting practices of open source development like using community-driven metadata for software and open, iterative development. It also argues that policies and incentives need to change to reward openness, reuse and reproducibility in order to avoid wasted time, money and opportunities.

1. kaitlin thaney
@kaythaney ; @mozillascience
RIT / 17 march 2015
making the web
work for science

2. doing good is part of our code

3. help researchers use the
power of the open web to
change science’s future.

4. (0)

7. power, performance, scale

8. our current systems are
designed to create
friction.
despite original intentions.

9. current state of science
articles
data
patents

10. some have a firehose
articles
data
patents

11. traditions last not because they are
excellent, but because influential
people are averse to change and
because of the sheer burdens of
transition to a better state ...
“
“
Cass Sunstein

12. downside of output-driven
recognition systems

13. “There’s greater reward,
and more temptation to
bend the rules.”
- David Resnik, bioethicist

14. (1)

15. leveraging the power of
the web for scholarship

16. - access to content, data, code, materials.
- emergence of “web-native” tools.
- rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing.
- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.
“web-enabled research”

17. what do we mean by
“open research”?
community technology practices
collaborative interoperable open review
participatory discoverable
data
management
recognition open tools sharing / reuse
mentorship
designed for
reuse
documentation /
versioning

18. (example)

19. let’s look at an example

20. 2004-2010
$350 million spent
70+ tools created

21. we’re rewarding the
wrong behavior.
at the sacrifice of scientific progress.

22. Source: Michener, 2006 Ecoinformatics.

23. Source: Wolkovich et al. GCB 2012.

24. “... up to 70 percent of research from academic labs cannot be
reproduced, representing an enormous waste of money and effort.”
- Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange

25. wasted ...
$$$
time
resource
opportunity

26. $60m+ for “management”
- Joe Gray
Oregon Health + Science University Center
“We are used to billion-dollar software,
and it’s not what we can afford.
I am worried that unless we rein in our
expectations, we will do this experiment
again and we will get the same result ...”

27. instill best
(digital,
reproducible)
practice
“research hygiene”

28. (2)

29. our systems need to
talk to one another.
applying lessons from open source development

32. code as a research object
what’s needed to reuse ?
http://bit.ly/mozfiggit

36. (community driven)
metadata for software discovery: JSON-LD
http://bit.ly/mozfiggit

37. http://softwarediscoveryindex.org/report/

38. open, iterative
development
the “work in progress” effect

40. Instead of cancer driving the development
of technology, it was the development of
technology that drove caBIG moving into
position where this technology could be
adopted by individuals who were
interested in cancer.
- Andrea Califano
Columbia University
“
“

41. [Their] approach to fulfilling [their] mission
was upside down.
- Andrea Califano
Columbia University
“
“

42. (3)

43. our practices are
limiting us.
how to further adoption of
open, web-enabled science?

44. research social capital capacity
infrastructure layers for
efficient, reproducible research
open tools
standards
best practices
research objects
scientific software
repositories
incentives
recognition / P&T
interdisciplinarity
collaboration
community dialogue
training
mentorship
professional dev
new policies
recognition
stakeholders: universities, researchers,
tool dev, funders, publishers ...

45. social
software
hardware
infrastructure layers

46. “web-enabled science”
- access to content, data, code, materials.
- emergence of “web-native” tools.
- rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing.
- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.

47. “web-enabled science”
what’s missing?
- access to content, data, code, materials.
- emergence of “web-native” tools.
- rewards for openness, interop, collaboration, sharing.
- push for ROI, reuse, recomputability, transparency.

48. fostering a (sustainable)
community of practitioners

49. rethinking
“professional development”

50. current activity:
250+ instructors
(60+, training)
5000+ learners

52. resbaz.edu.au

53. next global sprint: june 4-5, 2015
mozillascience.org/collaborate

54. lowering barriers to entry
(not expectations)

55. focus on building capacity,
not just more nodes.

56. (4)

57. shifting practice
(and getting it to stick)
is challenging.
(takeaways and closing caveats.)

59. 63 nations
10,000 scientists
50,000 participants
can we do the same
for research on the web?

60. tools and technology
cultural awareness, best practice
connections, open dialogue
skills training, incentives
what are the necessary components?

61. Source: Piwowar, et al. PLOS.

62. 1. bake reproducible
practices into the fabric of
research.

63. 2. design to unlock latent
potential of our systems.
(the technology is already there.)

64. 3. rethink how we reward
researchers and support
roles.
(and don’t be afraid to hit refresh.)

65. 4. be mindful of jargon/
semantics traps.

66. we’re here to help.
teach, contribute, learn.
http://mozillascience.org
sciencelab@mozillafoundation.org

67. kaitlin@mozillafoundation.org
@kaythaney ; @mozillascience
special thanks: