{"id":333,"date":"2010-02-09T16:01:55","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T16:01:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2010\/02\/09\/on_a_new_publishing_model\/"},"modified":"2010-02-09T16:01:55","modified_gmt":"2010-02-09T16:01:55","slug":"on_a_new_publishing_model","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2010\/02\/09\/on_a_new_publishing_model\/","title":{"rendered":"On a new publishing model"},"content":{"rendered":"

*UPDATE 2: We have a winner<\/a>!*<\/p>\n

\n*UPDATE: ENTRIES SO FAR<\/a>*<\/p>\n

\nTwitter, what is it good for? Hunh<\/em>.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nThere’s been rather an interesting couple of posts over at the Scholarly Kitchen, recently. What am I saying? They’re all interesting. Anyway, Kent Anderson says that blogs are for fogies<\/a> and David Crotty talks about ‘talking’ vs ‘doing’<\/a>. Elsewhere on Nature Network we’re re-visiting the meme of why do we blog anyway<\/em> (to which I’m not going to contribute, myself having decided to do<\/em> rather than talk about<\/em>). You can look up the links yourself if you can be bothered.<\/p>\n

\nAnyway, in the middle of a rather long and involved conversation, someone made a throwaway comment on David Crotty’s post. Then I thought<\/a> it might be fun to see if I could write a scientific paper in 140 characters<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\n"Clned gene _cancer_. KO in Ms. Ms dead. Cure cancer."<\/code><\/p>\n

\nBut why stop there? Here’s a challenge for you.<\/p>\n

\nYour task is to re-write a scientific paper, a real, peer-reviewed and published one, in 140 characters. Twitter it with the hashtag #sci140<\/a> so we can track them (OK, so that’s 7 characters you’ve just lost but no one said it would be easy). You can do this as many times as you like, as many papers as you like, and it would be nice if they were your own, but they don’t have to be. I’ll see if I can get some f1000 swag for what I deem to be the best entry.<\/p>\n

\nGo for it.<\/p>\n


\nCrossposted at f1000<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

*UPDATE 2: We have a winner!* *UPDATE: ENTRIES SO FAR* Twitter, what is it good for? Hunh. There’s been rather an interesting couple of posts over at the Scholarly Kitchen, recently. What am I saying? They’re all interesting. Anyway, Kent … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}