[open-science] How do we know open science is more efficient than what we do now?

[Daniel Mietchen]

There is a workshop going on right now in which we are trying to draft
a proposal for actually putting open science to a test:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LMnLAgyRXAPMTppzoqOH-cqBhGrrjtVZhTtZ4eX9awU/edit#

Later on, drafting will continue via
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:OpenScientist/Open_grant_writing/Testing_the_efficiency_of_open_science
.

Hope to see you there!

d.
--
http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
http://okfn.org
http://wikimedia.org


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Daniel Mietchen
<daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I assume that many on this list are sympathetic to the idea that open
> science is more efficient than the way research normally proceeds now, and
> experiences with the Polymath projects, the EHEC sequence annotation and
> Open Source Malaria all fit that picture. However, the assumption has never
> been tested systematically, and I think that once that were achieved, we
> would have better chances to get scientists, science funders and research
> administrators to actually consider the matter.
>
> One chance that I see to move this forward is the Knights News Challenge, to
> which I have submitted a proposal at
> https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/2014/submissions/opening-up-research-proposals
> that can be fine-tuned until April 27.
>
> I would appreciate your comments, or if you could help spread the word.
>
> Thanks and cheers,
>
> Daniel
>