Jacob Scott said, Super excited to see how this goes for you (and for all of us). Please share not only the research you hope to, but also best practices for the actual day-to-day operation. Worth looking into getting DOIs for your posts, especially if you are citing literature, so google scholar and equivalent can track. I think there is a website for that... look through this convo on twitter: https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/430095085489750016
David Basanta said, Great news David. This is the way to go.
Also, would you describe what science 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 were/are?
David Sumpter said, Thanks Jacob.. I will try to write about how we do the work etc on my own blog. Thanks for the DOI tip.
And David. The Open science 4.0 was a bit of a joke. I googled 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 and they were all taken in some way so I dived in with a 4.0!
Daniel Mietchen said, Great to see your move to more open communication.
I've poked around a bit on your pop charts and World Value Survey posts, and they got me wondering whether you'd be interested in modeling the research funding landscape and analyzing potential effects of increased openness.
Some of my thoughts on this are in
but I haven't attempted any modeling yet.
Jolle Jolles said, I really like your approach and look forward to the posts to come. I have been thinking about similar ideas for the past half year or so as well and think this is the way forward. I have started with a similar blogging style approach and want to document all aspects of science, such as the actual running of experiments (e.g. http://youtu.be/FB9usEImpd4). to try and give a more in-depth look of how it is to be a scientist and what lies underneath the scientific papers we produce. Looking forward to your groups posts!
David Sumpter said, Thanks. Great video Jolle. Love the break for a drink!