Introduction To Crowd Science

He has developed several leading crowd simulations systems (including the original Legion crowd modelling software, the Paramics UAF interface, Myriad, Shepard, Dwell modelling, Tawaf and the 3D RTDS tools) and written a book "Introduction to Crowd Science" which covers the last 30 years of teaching the principles and applications of the crowd sciences, modelling, monitoring and managing crowds in the built, and complex spaces.

Introduction to Crowd Science

URLs in thisdocument have been updated. Links enclosed in curlybrackets have been changed. If a replacement link was located,the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not beidentified, the broken link was removed.Science and Technology Resources on the InternetOpen Science and Crowd Science: Selected Sites and ResourcesDiane (DeDe) DawsonNatural Sciences Liaison LibrarianUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canadadiane.dawson@usask.ca Copyright 2012, Diane (DeDe) Dawson. Used with permission.Table of ContentsIntroduction Open Science Crowd ScienceMethods and ScopeOpen Science - Definitions and PrinciplesOpen Science - Open Lab Notebooks of Individuals and Lab GroupsOpen Science - BlogsCrowd Science - Projects for Individuals or Small TeamsCrowd Science - Volunteer Distributed Computing Projects The Main Software Organizations Selected Projects Further Sources for ProjectsSelected Examples of Collaborative Science Sites for SpecialistsMain Software & Online Tools for Open ScienceOpen Science Conferences and Community ConferencesFurther Reading/Viewing Videos Declarations, Reports and White Papers Open e-Books Selected Essays, Articles, and InterviewsReferencesIntroduction"To take full advantage of modern tools for the production of knowledge, we need to create an open scientific culture where as much information as possible is moved out of people's heads and laboratories, and onto the network" (Nielsen 2011, p.183).New Internet technologies are radically enhancing the speed and ease of scholarly communications, and are providing opportunities for conducting and sharing research in new ways. This webliography explores the emerging "open science" and "crowd science" movements which are making use of these new opportunities to increase collaboration and openness in scientific research.

The collaboration of many researchers on a project can enhance the rate of data-collection and analysis, and ignite new ideas. In addition, since there are more eyes to spot any inaccuracies or errors, collaborative research is likely to produce better quality results. Openness early in the research process alerts others to the work resulting in less duplication of efforts. Later on in the process, openness can amplify the visibility and impact of the research results and create more opportunities for future collaborations. An increase in both openness and collaboration has the potential to significantly accelerate the progress of science.

The Internet makes these trends possible and allows discussion across space and across disciplines. Indeed, it facilitates connections between scientists and the general public. Although citizen science is not a new phenomenon, the Internet is enabling more science enthusiasts to participate in the discourse than was previously feasible and more scientists are beginning to recognize the valuable contributions collaborations of this kind can make.

Taking inspiration from the open source software and open access movements, some scientists are now sharing their lab notebooks and raw experimental data openly online. Open science is a broad concept that includes these closely related areas of open notebook science and open data. Advocates of open science believe that there should be no insider information, and all protocols and results -- even those of failed experiments -- should be made visible and open to reuse as soon as possible in open lab notebooks and data repositories. Additional definitions of open science are listed in the first section of this webliography.

The primary concern expressed by many researchers when first confronted with this method is the fear of being 'scooped.' However, Williams (2010) argues that the web is essentially an improved printing press: once something is posted online, it can be considered published. So, practicing open science is actually a means to establish priority. Other concerns may relate to research that involves private medical records or proprietary information. A researcher committed to open science methods might be able to accommodate these concerns, but there also might simply be some areas of science unsuitable for this approach.

Besides establishing priority, there are many benefits to practicing open science. Science done in the open increases the potential for collaborations to occur. In the past, researchers might have worked in parallel for years on the same topic and only discovered their shared interest when one published the work. Today, if these same researchers practice open science, they can find each other quickly online and perhaps form a mutually beneficial partnership. This would eliminate the duplication of efforts and potentially speed the progress of their research. Additionally, once others in the same field are aware of an open scientist's work, they can follow the results produced and alert the investigator to any anomalies that might have been missed. By clearly and thoroughly posting protocols and data online, open scientists are also allowing others to replicate the experiment and reproduce the results adding to the robustness of the conclusions. And finally, unsuccessful experiments published in an open lab notebook can save the time of other researchers who may be considering performing similar experiments. All of these factors can result in increasing the speed and quality of scientific discoveries.

An added benefit of practicing open science may be in building better relationships between scientists and the public. Certainly, open scientific notebooks and data files may not be entirely comprehensible to the average citizen, but the simple fact that this information is openly posted will increase the transparency of science. This transparency can help enhance trust between scientists and the tax-paying citizens who likely ultimately fund much of the research. In fact, one of the main criticisms arising from the "climategate" controversy of 2009 was that scientists refused to share data. This created an impression that they had something to hide (Hayes 2010).

Although the community of open science practitioners is growing, it is still a relatively small network. While the online technologies facilitating openness have developed quickly, the culture of science and its incentive systems are much slower to catch up. Unfortunately, practicing open science involves a time commitment that is not rewarded in most tenure processes at the moment, and there is currently no method to track the impact of open science practices.

Modern tools have rapidly increased our capacity for producing massive quantities of scientific data and scientists at all levels must collaborate to manage this data deluge (Wilbanks 2009). Enabling the average citizen to participate in the collection and management of this data can be one solution to this deluge. Although crowd science is not a widely used term, I use it here to refer to the phenomenon of innovative online "crowdsourcing" science projects, in contrast to more traditional and smaller scale offline citizen science activities. However, an individual involved in a project will continue to be referred to as a "citizen scientist" herein.

Opening up the research process to interested non-academics has the potential to increase understanding of how science functions by engaging and educating the public. Enthusiastic amateurs may have a lot to contribute to scientific progress. They may have valuable insights from unique perspectives and the spare time to commit to data collection and analysis. Indeed, citizen scientists often help with data and specimen collection. The difference today is that the web allows a new range of opportunities for such individuals to participate in science. According to Clay Shirky (2010), the world's educated population has well over a trillion hours of free time each year, which he refers to as a "cognitive surplus." This is a huge social asset to be harnessed for the benefit of large community projects enabled by the recent invention and spread of Web 2.0 applications. This is the basis of crowd science.

I conducted the research for this webliography over the period of one year (2011), primarily by following the discussion of open scientists on various social networks and mailing lists, as well as following the blog postings of the main proponents of open science.

This webliography is not intended to be exhaustive, but instead attempts to introduce science librarians to the significant proponents of, and sites describing, the open science and crowd science movements.

There have been several attempts at defining "open science", and below I have listed the most commonly referred to examples. Additional definitions appear in the sources found in the "Further Reading/Viewing" section. In addition to definitions of this movement, this list includes links to sets of principles formulated to guide scientists and administrators towards openness.

This section presents a selection of the open lab notebooks of the most active practitioners and proponents of open science in a variety of disciplines, as well as others that follow this practice for their own purposes. In ideal terms, open lab notebooks should expose all research protocols and results (including failed experiments) in as close to real time as possible. However, researchers vary widely in their actual practice. Additionally, open notebook science practitioners often use a combination of wiki and/or blog platforms, so there is a range of platform approaches among the notebooks as well. 041b061a72