I saw a news story on The Scientist newsblog, about stem cell banks in particular the number of different stem cell banks both in the USA and elsewhere. Asking whether there was a point in duplicating effort, they concluded that there was some benefit but that the need for economies of scale and developing expertise meant there was a limit to how many stem cell banks would persist.
Another item from The Scientist community gave notice of a new forum to help scientists whose first language is not English. Fairly quickly a reply was posted pointing out that another couple of services aimed to provide similar assistance. So, more duplication of effort.
Then I saw a message on psci-com about a new website to track academics . Steffi Suhr posted a reply pointing out that it was a bit like some aspects of Facebook and Nature Network. I also pointed out the existence of services like Community of Science and Biomedexperts . Roddy Macleod listed still more:
MyNetResearch , ResearchGate , Academici , allResearchers , iBreadcrumbs , ResearcherID
It does seem we love to duplicate services, to start new things to do the same job as other things. I suppose it’s partly because setting something up is fun, partly because many of these services are not widely known about, partly because we all think we can do it better and partly because there are many different niches to be served.
But I can’t help wondering whether a bit of collaboration might sometimes be better than so much diversification.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Frank Norman on My lovely sister, 1946-2025
- Mary Crickard on My lovely sister, 1946-2025
- Frank Norman on My lovely sister, 1946-2025
- Patti Biggs on My lovely sister, 1946-2025
- Frank Norman on My lovely sister, 1946-2025
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- September 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- April 2023
- April 2022
- January 2022
- September 2021
- June 2021
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- March 2016
- April 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
Categories
- AI
- Archives
- Art
- Authorship
- Bibliographic management
- Bibliometrics etc
- Biographical
- Blogology
- Books
- Collections
- Communicating science
- Copyright and IP
- Crick
- Document delivery
- E-books
- Education
- Ethics
- Family
- Film
- Film and music
- Friends
- Froth
- Future of Libraries
- History
- Information skills
- Journal publishing
- Language
- Libraries and librarians
- Management
- Mentoring
- Metadata
- Music
- Open Access
- Open Science
- Peer review
- Preprints
- Reading recommendations
- Research Councils
- Research data
- Research management
- Research tools
- Scientific literature
- Searching
- Social networking
- Uncategorized
- Wikipedia
- Women
- Writing
Blogroll
Meta
There seem to be lots of sites that provide (different!) unique personal IDs, as well as Researcher ID to which you link here. I was referred to Claim ID via someone at Nature Network, which I use as an open ID identifier, but not everywhere recognises it, and I have to log in all the time when I use it. A unique identifier seems to be a good idea, in principle, if everyone could actually manage to stick to just one and if all these systmes recognised it!
As a good evolutionary geneticist, I recognise that duplication leads to either the loss or the diversification of function in one of the redundant copies. This is A Good Thing, right?!
I guess that must be right, Cath. But it doesn’t feel right. It still seems like too much wasted effort.
Maxine – I think the ID thing is just a part of it. It’s more about showing links and publications.
I guess that’s a feature of evolution… way more extinct species than extant ones!
The Science Blogging London conference had an unconference on a related topic: tracking conversations through the bloggosphere.
In the last few months we have seen a lot of new Web 2.0 services for scientists (some of them mentioned in your post, more can be found here). I would guess that in the future we see both more integration but also consolidation of these services (meaning some of them will disappear). One reason I believe that is that I don’t see a clear business model for some of them.
I personally would be very interested in a personal author ID. But I think that CrossRef is a better place for such a service than Thomson Reuters (ResearcherID).
On you last point I agree totally, Martin. I suspect most authors will feel the same way.
I agree re. business models too. I think it’s easier to start something up, with a bit of coding and interface design, than it is to devise a business model for success.
Also some older services, like Community of Science, seem to have been slow to to move into the Web 2 world.
I think that last point is correct, Frank – Open Notebook science, wikis, web 2.0 “journals” and so on, have all faced issues with databases and indexers not quite catching on to the concept or knowing what to “call” these projects.
Ironically, for a post that I titled “Duplicating effort”, it seems that I have myself been duplicating here. The creator of academia.edu has been busy for a few weeks publicising his site. The Chronicle of Higher Education covered it, with some online responders making similar points to me, and a lot more comments on the Chronicle Forums from whence it also found its way onto FriendFeed.
It was also discussed briefly on Ars Technica
That’ll teach me to do a bit more background checking in future.
Frank, I did have to grin when you replied to that psci-com e-mail as well. Still wondering whether we’ll hear anything back – I was actually not being facetious!
Concerning your background checks – of course there has been the long discussion on the beauty of having parallel conversations with different outcomes on Richard’s blog. Tracking them all – an thus being able to find out what other conclusions other people come to under different (or even the same) circumstances would be a big bonus in my mind, opening up different perspectives.
Now, if I could just find the time to read everything I want to read!! Any good suggestions anyone?
So we need to find ways to do two things at once?
Doing the washing while answering email. Reading a book while on the exercise bike (as has been reported by a few bloggers recently).
Or answering e-mail/reading blogs and drinking coffee… actually, I think it would have to be at least three things. You won’t like this Maxine, but I’ve recently started dreaming about having a long commute by train (instead of a drive with a daycare drop off – I could read on the train). Ah, the grass is always greener…