[open-science] Working Group Profile in PLoS Biology

Jenny Molloy jenny.molloy at okfn.org
Thu Aug 18 09:22:28 UTC 2011

Hi All

Thanks to those who have taken a look, if anyone else who would like
to comment and change things could do so by Sunday evening, I'll
attempt to get the revised version in to PloS on Monday.


On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Thaks Jenny - tremendous material to get started with.
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org>
> wrote:
>> Hi All
>> The OKF was approached recently by PLoS Biology to write a piece on the
>> working group for their Community pages. I've drafted one, and it would be
>> great if some of you could take a look and comment!
>> http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-PLoSBiology
>> Please make edits, add comments throughout the text or at the end.
>> Things to note:
>> It is requested that we don't use this entirely as a self promotion
>> activity and therefore focus mainly on a few things we do as opposed to
>> listing them all,
> Agreed. It may be worth pointing out that the OKF(-science) can act as a
> tool to collect and refine opintions and protocols. Unlike real-life
> meetings where the attendence is based on protoplasm, this approach allows
> anyone to participate. However the "product" is a considerable refinement of
> the ideas that went in. OKF takes its output quality seriously.
>> so I've tried to find a balance whilst including enough activities to
>> demonstrate the breadth of our scope. The focus is:
>> The Open Definition
>> The Panton Principles
>> I have taken it as our position that we support the idea that scientific
>> data should be open by default according to the Panton Principles (with all
>> the usual caveats for privacy, special cases etc). I'm pretty sure that this
>> reflects the views of most of the group, but I have mentioned that we are a
>> diverse bunch :)
>> I'd particularly like comments on:
>> Have I made it clear enough that the piece is discussing data associated
>> with published science (as per the PP)?
>> Are there interesting cases/examples/analogies that you think would fit in
>> the piece?
>> Any general comments on content or style
>> Please be frank - this is a great opportunity to get some exposure for the
>> group (and make us citeable) so we want this to be as good as possible.
> I agree we shouldn't advertise ourselves per se but it is worth making it
> clear that OKF can have a role to play as a formal part in the development
> of new protocols and approaches.
>> Thanks very much for your help!
>> Jenny
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069

More information about the open-science mailing list