Learning From Beethoven: Speeding Up The Exchange Of Scientific Knowledge

from the it's-good-to-share dept

Fri, Nov 18th 2011 12:07am — Glyn Moody

There is a general belief that science proceeds by smooth cycles of discovery and sharing � that scientists formulate theories, investigate problems, produce data and then publish results for other scientists to check, reproduce and then build on.

That may be the theory, but in practice the frictionless sharing of scientific results is greatly impeded by two factors: the huge profits that scientific publishers make from acting as a tollgate for knowledge through their journals, and the Bayh-Dole Act that encourages educational establishments to try to make money by not freely sharing the discoveries of their academics, but patenting them instead.

Open access arose in part to combat the first of these, and now there's a new project that wants to build on its achievements by updating scientific knowledge more rapidly:

We want to change the way research is communicated, both amongst researchers, as well as with health practitioners, patients and the wider public. Inspired by Beethoven, we want to build a research version of his repository and try to tackle the question "What if the public scientific record would be updated directly as research proceeds?"

"Inspired by Beethoven" refers to this quotation from one of his letters, written in 1801:

There should be only one repository of art in the world, where an artist would only need to bring his creations in order to take what he needed.

Here's how this new project hopes to start creating a repository for science:

There are already over 100,000 scholarly articles available online under a Creative Commons Attribution License and thus free for anyone to read, download, copy, distribute, modify and build upon, provided that proper attribution is given. We will start building Beethoven's open repository by taking 10,000 of these (especially review articles), convert them into a common format, interlink them like topics are linked on Wikipedia, and update them with fresh information as new research findings become available. This will turn the original 10,000 articles into Evolving Review Articles - in other contexts called Living Reviews - available under that same Creative Commons license. We expect that this will help research to be communicated faster, with the ability to promptly correct errors or misconceptions, and in a way that better incorporates the interests of the public. The Evolving Reviews will have a public version history, so that anyone can see in what state the article was at any given time in the past. Over time, this feature can develop into an important tool for exploring the history of science, or of ideas more generally.

Obviously this idea is close to that of wiki-based projects like Wikipedia, and that's no bad thing, since the format has proved its power in multiple contexts. Interestingly, the people behind what they seem to be calling "Beethoven's open repository of research" want to write some new software for the job:

we think that Beethoven's open repository of research should be federated rather than centralized. This means that if you edit a page in the repository, this act will create a personal copy for you. You can decide whether you want to feed these changes back to others, they can decide whether they accept your changes, and there must be options for authorizing certain versions for certain purposes. Such federated systems for the collaborative structuring of knowledge are only just emerging, and producing a working prototype platform that allows anyone to contribute to Beethoven's open repository is an important milestone in our project. Once the platform is up and running, the 10,000 seed articles will have to be imported, and a selection of them will be used to demo the Evolving Review concept. You can help shape the project by making suggestions as to what topics we should concentrate on. Finally, we want to facilitate the reuse of the Evolving Reviews in contexts outside research, especially in education and in supporting patients.

They've launched an appeal for funds using RocketHub, a platform similar to Kickstarter, and are seeking a fairly modest $12,000. But you have to wonder whether that's really enough for what sounds an interesting but ambitious project.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: beethoven, science, sharing

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

A Guy (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:31am

It's not a bad idea, but I don't think a lot of people realize how research works here.

It used to be get a grant, do some research, get a result, publish.

Now it's do some do some research, get a result, get a grant to retroactively pay yourself, then publish.

If they published results before the grant money came in, who would pay them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 1:46am

How about studies with contradictory results?
I have a concern over the updates. What if two (or more) researches have findings that are contradictory to each others? Will there be someone to review and "judge" which one is more likely to be correct, or will both piece of result be added to repository for others to check?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dominic Sayers (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 2:07am

hypothes.is
The world wide web is the repository. That was Tim Berners-Lee's vision.

You may be interested in hypothes.is which aims to provide open, web-based peer review for pretty much anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Troll, 18 Nov 2011 @ 2:33am

Note to self:

Add Beethoven to list of piracy supporters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:08am

Re:
Yeah he was a socilaist too - he was awarded a lifetime stipend by the City.

(Worth noting that the 9th Symphony was financed not by copyright on his previous works but by the London Philharmonic Society - which was the Kickstarter of its day!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:10am

Re: How about studies with contradictory results?
As happens with traditional publishing models - both will be published provided they pass a bar of not being obviously wrong. Later work will then resolve the issue one way or the other - or maybe find that both are right - and it is only the idea that they contradict each other that is false.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:31am

Re: hypothes.is
In in the world where TBL worked - high energy physics - scientists had already routed around the publishers in the 70's - we had a system called the preprint system whereby new papers were distibuted around to all the institutions in draft (photocopied) form. Major institutions like SLAC, CERN etc maintained lists of preprints - which were distributed weekly to everyone. There was also a program called STAIRS (on the nascent internet) that enabled you to find older papers.

What TBL did was to mechanise and streamline this system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:32am

Noooo!
Hopefully SOPA/IProtect will put an end to this sort of sharing nonsense.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cookoo, 18 Nov 2011 @ 3:36am

Re:
Beethoven is killing the music industry!

...

Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 5:34am

Re: Re:
Beethoven is killing the music industry!

By writing stuff that's so good that the modern composers can't compete!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Tate (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 6:04am

Patent Case?
I can see them getting sued for violating quite a few vaguely-worded, unused patents with this plan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2011 @ 6:06am

One central repository
We need a central scientific learning academy so that institutions and research aren't focused on their prestige but on the research and advancing mankind's knowledge. Something like our own version of the Vulcan Science Academy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 6:24am

Re:
If they published results before the grant money came in, who would pay them?

Actually you need to publish before you can get a grant anyway - otherwise no "track record" so no money.

So the sequence is:
Do work - publish - get grant - "enhance work" publish again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 7:37am

Re: Re:
I stand corrected. I was assuming you started after you developed a reputation in your chosen field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:12am

Re: Re:
Given what I've heard from some people it seems to be:

Do some research
get a grant unrelated to your research
continue doing original research using grant money
suddenly realize your grant is about to expire,
quickly slap together something vaguely related to the grant
get the grant renewed
go back to original research
publish original research

It's a bit of a caricature obviously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 8:19am

I think this could solve the problem on unpublishable results. I have a friend who does research. He was telling me how after 6 months working on a very promising project that everyone around him was excited about, he randomly mentioned it to some fellow scientist who immediately pulled out a stack of papers a mile high and said something along the lines of: "Yeah, we tried that about 5 years ago. Took us 2 years to figure out it was a dead end." Since the result was negative, it was unpublishable. I cringe at the number of scientists that must be right now working on something that has already been demonstrated false by somebody else somewhere. Having research come out more in real time could help alleviate that problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AMusingFool (profile), 18 Nov 2011 @ 9:55am

They've heard of Git?
Seems like it, together with a web server, would take care of 90% of this.

Put a wrapper around Git, perhaps, to make it friendlier, and standardize how to contact authors (and where what each author considers authoritative resides; perhaps Git has already tackled each of those problems, even), and you're pretty much there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mhenriday (profile), 20 Nov 2011 @ 7:20am

There's no doubt but what this project - or something like it -
would be an immense benefit to researchers. For that reason it is likely to be banned by the US Congress and its proposers thretened with a one-way trip to Guant�namo....

Henri
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 30 Nov 2011 @ 4:16am

Re:
that also brings up the issue of the lack of ability to publish negative results. Whilst i can see potentials for abuse, it would be a useful process, and you could prove you were doing /something/.
[ link to this | view in thread ]