The Lockdown Chronicles 15: Mary

This is just a thumbnail. To go to the comic strip, click on the blog post URL.

Click on the image below to read the comic strip in full size. Sources and references on this post under the comic strip below.

Mary is teaching online from home.
Click on the image for full size.

Mary Somerville (née Fairfax, formerly Greig; 26 December 1780 – 29 November 1872) was a Scottish science writer and polymath. She studied mathematics and astronomy, and was nominated to be jointly the first female member of the Royal Astronomical Society at the same time as Caroline Herschel. In 1819 her husband was appointed physician to Chelsea Hospital and the family moved to Hanover Square into a government house in Chelsea. Somerville was a friend of Anne Isabella Milbanke, Baroness Wentworth, and was mathematics tutor to her daughter, Ada Lovelace. With Somerville, Ada attended the scientific gatherings where she met Charles Babbage. [Wikipedia entry]

Text adapted from Somerville, Mary [1780–1872] On the connexion of the physical sciences (1834). London: J. Murray. Wellcome Collection. Public Domain Mark; Somerville, Martha (1873). Personal Recollections, from Early Life to Old Age, of Mary Somerville: With Selections from Her Correspondence. London: J. Murray. Wellcome Collection. Public Domain Mark.

Source image: Mary Somerville [Fairfax]. Stipple engraving by W. Holl, 1858, after J. R. Swinton, 1848.Wellcome Library no. 8891i; Wellcome Collection. CC BY 4.0. This comic strip CC-BY-NC-SA.

References

Somerville, Mary (1834) On the connexion of the physical sciences. London: J. Murray. Wellcome Collection. Available at https://wellcomecollection.org/works/t8qef4k4 [Accessed 29 April 2020]

Somerville, Martha (1873) Personal Recollections, from Early Life to Old Age, of Mary Somerville: With Selections from Her Correspondence. London: J. Murray. Wellcome Collection. Available at https://wellcomecollection.org/works/we9qcvzx [Accessed 29 April 2020]

Mary Somerville [Fairfax]. Stipple engraving by W. Holl, 1858, after J. R. Swinton, 1848.Wellcome Library no. 8891i; Wellcome Collection. Available at https://wellcomecollection.org/works/uww3svfm [Accessed 29 April 2020]

 

The Lockdown Chronicles is a series of periodical comic strips made at night (in candlelight!) adapting and reusing openly-licensed or public domain items from online digital collections. Publication and tweetage are scheduled in advance. Historical sources are adapted and updated for the current pandemic; please refer to each strip’s references on each post for further context.  Catch up with the series at https://epriego.blog/tag/the-lockdown-chronicles/.

The Power of Sharing in English, Spanish and French

Symbola Comics Logo

 

I am happy to announce that today we published ‘The Power of Sharing‘, a comic resulting from the collaboration between figshare, Symbola Comics, and LaGrúa Estudio (1).

You can view the comic, download it, cite it, comment and share it from

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5993392

Concept and story by Francisco De La Mora & Ernesto Priego

Art by Cristina Durán La Grúa Estudio

Design by Daniela Rocha

The comic is also available in Spanish (2):

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6061460

and French (3):

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6204755

The whole set, including the whole InDesign package, are available in a figshare collection (4) at:

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4052732

As you know I strongly believe that sustainable open access to research and open research data can break barriers of all types and empower the researchers of the future.

I personally hope we’ve been able to share an optimisitc message of empowerment and encouragement.

There’s too many reasons to get dispirited and to just get with the programme. We can change the future by the actions we take in the present- sharing and collaboration are inherently optimistic expressions of trust.

I have faith that what we do today, no matter how apparently insignificant, will have an effect on others tomorrow.

References

  1. de la Mora, F., Priego, E., Durán, C., Rocha, D., and Hardeman, M., 2018. The Power of Sharing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5993392
  2. de la Mora, F., Priego, E., Durán, C., Rocha, D., and Hardeman, M., 2018. El Poder de Compartir. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6061460
  3. de la Mora, F., Priego, E., Durán, C., Rocha, D., and Hardeman, M., 2018. Le Pouvoir de Partager. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6204755
  4. de la Mora, F., Priego, E., Durán, C., Rocha, D., and Hardeman, M., 2018. The Power of Sharing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4052732

Pint of Science: Comics, Humans and Technology in the Pub! 16 May 2017

I am pleased to announce I will participate at the following Pint of Science event:

Humans and technology: in life and in death

Tuesday 16 May 2017

Doors open 6.30 PM, Event 7.00 PM – 9.30 PM

The Artillery Arms 102 Bunhill Row,
London EC1Y 8ND

Come along and live it up – it’ll be dead fun.  The function room is on the first floor, with no wheelchair access.

Technology is everywhere. Its involvement in our world changes across the lifespan. This evening will explore some of the ways researchers are applying different technologies as we age. You’ll hear how technology can be used both as we live and as we die. Expert speakers from City, University of London will introduce you to a world of smart homes, virtual rehabilitation and mobile phone autopsies – a world where online comics are being used to make sense of both life and death.

Full programme info and registration at https://pintofscience.co.uk/event/humans-and-technology-in-life-and-in-death-

Hope to see you there!

Interviewed by ScienceOpen

ScienceOpen logo

 

The tireless Jon Tennant continues his ScienceOpen series “highlighting diverse perspectives in the vast field of ‘open science’.”

He states on the introduction to his latest post:

“the last post in this series with Iara Vidal highlighted the opportunities of using altmetrics, as well as insight into scholarly publishing in Brazil. This week, Ernesto Priego talks with us about problems with the scholarly publishing system that led him to start his own journal, The Comics Grid.”

You can read the interview (where I talk at length…) here.

Needless to say my personal opinions are my own as an individual and do not represent those of my employer, colleagues or professional networks. Thank you for reading!

A Dataset of 8,438 Research Papers with Keywords “racial” and “ethnicity”

Screen Shot 2014-08-28 at 11.49.18

I have shared a file containing a sheet with a list of 8, 348 journal articles obtained from a basic search for the keywords “racial” and “etchnicity” in research papers mentioned online anytime as tracked by Altmetric.

Priego, Ernesto (2014) Altmetric Report of All Mentioned Articles with Keywords “racial” and “ethnicity” as of 28 August 2014 12:00 BST  figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1153816

The file contains a sheet with the list of all 8,438 bibliographic entries, including DOIs and URLs, and mention counts on different Web services as tracked by Altmetric.

The entries are ordered from the highest-scoring (best quality of online attention) down. The Altmetric score is a quantative measure of the quality and quantity of attention that a scholarly article has received.

I have edited the spreadsheet adding columns H, I and J, hoping any users of this data are interested in adding the type of access, license and, if applicable, price of each output.

This file has been shared with the intention of creating awareness of the scientific/academic literature mentioning the above-mentioned keywords being mentioned online as currently tracked by the altmetrics service employed to obtain the dataset. Data might require refining and deduplication.

Please note that the academic disciplines and methodologies represented in this dataset reflect the sources curated by the service employed. This is an unedited report obtained through a basic automated search so not all entries might be considered relevant and users will require to refine the data to fit their own needs. There is some very interesting and useful stuff there.

I created and shared this file with a Creative Commons- Attribution license (CC-BY) for non-profit academic research and educational use.

Data obtained with the Altmetric Explorer, available at http://www.altmetric.com/

If you use or refer to this data in any way please cite and link back using the citation information above.

Ebola: Publisher, Access and License Types of the 100 Most Mentioned Papers

I made a quick alluvial diagram showing the publisher, access and license types of the top 100 papers in our dataset.

Alluvial Diagram Showing the Publishers of the Top 100 Ebola Papers According to Altmetric as of Wed Aug 06 2014 16:44:28 GMT+0000 (UTC)  By License and Access Type

Source:
Priego, Ernesto; Lewandowski, Tomasz; Atenas, Javiera; Andrés Delgado; Isabel Galina; Levin, John; Murtagh, John; Brun, Laurent; Whitton, Merinne; Pablo de Castro; Sarah Molloy; Petersen, Sigmund; Gutierrez, Silvia (2014): Articles with Ebola mentioned online anytime as tracked by Altmetric, with crowdsourced type of access and license. figshare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1137162

Retrieved 10:22, Aug 15, 2014 (GMT)

Ebola: Access and Licenses of 497 Papers Crowdsourced in 7 Days

From  (2014): Articles with Ebola mentioned online anytime as tracked by Altmetric, with crowdsourced type of access and license. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1137162

Yesterday I shared a spreadsheet containing references to 497 papers on Ebola including the access and license type of each paper. The access and license types of each paper were crowdsourced. Fourteen volunteers participated in completing the dataset.

On Wednesday 6 August 2014 I shared a dataset on a Google spreadsheet of references to 497 papers on Ebola exported from an Altmetric Explorer report (see my previous post here).

One of the intentions of sharing the dataset, apart from sharing a file containing links to 497 scientific articles on Ebola mentioned online, was to crowdsource the access and license type of each paper. I promoted the file and the task amongst my followers on Twitter.

The task was to manually click on each link and personally verify which papers were open access, which were paywalled, which were ‘free to read’, etc., and to verify under which licenses they were published. We also added another column for ‘Publisher’. Contributors were asked to add their names and Twitter usernames on a column next to the Access, License and Publisher rows they had completed.

By Wednesday 13 August 2014, the whole dataset was complete (only a few Publisher rows remained to be completed, which I did). I closed the shared Google spreadsheet for editing and did a little bit of manual data refining; and verified some of the access and licenses types. I then downloaded it and did a bit more refining on Excel; and edited the spreadsheet so it contained a documentation ReadMe sheet and two extra sheets; one sheet with only the Open Access (in this case we included SA, ND and NC Creative Commons Licenses; though as we know fully-fledged Open Access requires CC-BY licenses) and another one with only the CC-BY entries for easier location of the open papers. I shared it last night on figshare, including everyone who helped crowdsource as co-authors of the spreadsheet:

Priego, Ernesto; Lewandowski, Tomasz; Atenas, Javiera; Andrés Delgado; Isabel Galina; Levin, John; Murtagh, John; Brun, Laurent; Whitton, Merinne; Pablo de Castro; Sarah Molloy; Petersen, Sigmund; Gutierrez, Silvia (2014): Articles with Ebola mentioned online anytime as tracked by Altmetric, with crowdsourced type of access and license. figshare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1137162
Retrieved 07:39, Aug 14, 2014 (GMT)

Last night I did a quick chart about the number of papers per type of access. It was late so it may contain errors. One of the reasons why the spreadsheet has been shared openly is so that others can do their own analyses and contrast any information about it.

Number of Ebola Papers in Dataset Per Access Type chart CC-BY Ernesto Priego
Number of Ebola Papers in Dataset Per Access Type. Click to enlarge.

 

Access type Number of papers in dataset per access type
All Open Access (includes NC; 95 CC-BY) 133
Paywalled 138
Free to Read but not OA (All Rights Reserved research papers) 211
“Advance Access” (Free to read but not OA) 1
News Items (Free to Read but not OA) 6
DOIs not found or unresolved 4

[Please note total is not 497 in the charts above as some license/access types were either not present or unclear; for example there’s cases of papers labeled as “Open Access” but the license for that article was absent of hard to find. In any case this chart needs to be revised and editorial decisions need to be taken about what will count as what. The charts are shared in the knowledge errors can still remain].

Depending on your interests, there is a series of different analyses that could be done from the data. I’ll be working on that; but since we have shared the dataset openly, why not see what you can do with it? (Don’t forget to cite the dataset!)

Ebola: Crowdsourcing type of access and licensing of the most mentioned articles according to Altmetric

Update: for a follow-up, please read this [opens in a new window].

Ebola virus virion. Created by CDC microbiologist Cynthia Goldsmith, this colorized transmission electron micrograph (TEM) revealed some of the ultrastructural morphology displayed by an Ebola virus virion. Public Health Image Library, #10816. The image is in the public domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.
Ebola virus virion. Created by CDC microbiologist Cynthia Goldsmith, this colorized transmission electron micrograph (TEM) revealed some of the ultrastructural morphology displayed by an Ebola virus virion. Public Health Image Library, #10816. The image is in the public domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.

I have shared a dataset of 497 bibliographic entries of scientific articles mentioning the keyword ‘Ebola’. The spreadsheet is an export from an Altmetric Explorer report obtained on Wednesday 6 August 2014 at 7:55 PM BST. The spreadsheet includes the number of mentions in different social media and Web platforms each article had as tracked by Altmetric at the time of obtaining the report.

We need your help.  Ebola is a relevant topic right now and accessibility to research about it is critical. The intention is to crowdsource the type of access (non-Open Acces or Open Access) of each article (column J) and the type of license (column I).

Please click on the URL of an article (column E) and manually look for access type and license type. If you are accessing the Internet from your institution, please make sure to verify how you are getting access to an article; you may have immediate access to it, but this does not mean the article is Open Access properly. Please include your name and if appropriate Twitter username on column K next to your contributions.

For the purposes of this project an article will qualify as “Open Access” if it is freely accessible without previous membership, login or paywall. It must be described literally as such by the platform/journal that publishes it and must have been published with a Creative Commons or similar open license.

“Free Access”, “Free to You” or any other access model which is not explicitly self-described by the publisher on the article as “Open Access” and is not published with a Creative Commons license should be listed as “non-OA” as there is no guarantee said article will remain available free of charge or that it can be accessed, distributed or reused without cost or previous permission.

“Type of license” (column I) refers to the license with which the article has been published under. Options are “All Rights Reserved” for non-OA articles and all the types of Creative Commons licenses. By definition, any article published under All Rights Reserved cannot qualify as “Open Access” even if it is available without toll. If the license is not clearly visible, please add “N/A”. If the article is published under different type of ‘open’ license (but not CC) please indicate which one.

The data in the spreadsheet might also need refining; i.e. some titles might not be relevant (not scientific articles properly or not about ebola) and these should be removed.

The shared spreadsheet is a public document and all visitors can edit. Please edit respectfully, responsibly and ethically. As such this is also an experiment into the possibilities of open collaboration. Thank you for your contribution!

About the CC licenses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Source: http://www.altmetric.com/

Spreadsheet shortened URL: http://goo.gl/nxKCmU

Wellcome Trust APCs: Towards a New [Open Access] Serials Crisis?

In an attempt to make the debate around the costs of open access publishing more evidence based”, the Readme file (14th March 2013) signed by Robert Kiley says, the Wellcome Trust released into the public domain a dataset including details of its open access spend in 2012-2013, “as reported by UK institutions and the Trust’s Major Overseas Programmes in receipt of an OA block grant“.

As I wrote yesterday,

Cameron Neylon subsequently shared a dataset on figshare (and github) with some of the inconsistencies refined:

Neylon, Cameron (2014): Wellcome Trust Article Processing Charges by Article 2012/13. figshare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.964812

The Wellcome Trust datatset only includes information when an APC was levied. It includes a column for the name of the publisher, as reported by the institution. As the Wellcome Trust does not impose any name authority control on this field, the same publisher was listed in different ways, including typos, acronyms, joint publisher names, etc.  For example, there would be OUP, Oxford University Press, and O.U.P appearing and counting as different publishers. These publisher name inconsistencies were still present in Cameron Neylon’s version of the data as cited above.

I wanted to focus on a few major publishers, and in order to filter them I had to refine the Publisher names inconsistencies a bit. I worked with Cameron Neylon’s version of the dataset and manually refined inconsistencies in the Publisher field (same publishers appeared under different names and spellings and other text formatting issues). I did not refine the journal titles.

I have been looking at that spreadsheet, which reflects the manual refining of the Publisher field I did. As I also tried to explain in my previous post, this ‘refining’ is the result of a human interpretive process, and some of the publisher names that are distinct in that dataset might still be potentially subsumable to other publisher names in the set. Logically, the number of publishers and costs and outputs associated to each publisher will depend on how the Publisher field has been refined; other quantifications and visualisations of the original dataset or other versions that have been refined differently are therefore likely to differ.

After refining the number of publisher names to 101, I  focused on 11 publishers from the dataset and obtained totals as well as their maximum and minimum APCs.

I shared this version of the spreadsheet as

Priego, Ernesto; Neylon, Cameron (2014): Wellcome Trust APC spend (2012-13) Spreadsheet with Publisher Names Refined. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.966427

I am interested in focusing our attention on the highest and lowest APCs that these 11 publishers levied. I believe they offer a glimpse of the average cost of “Open Access” as currently charged by major academic/scientific publishers. I use scare quotes because most of these publishers (if not all?) do not generally publish born-Open Access journals but so-called “hybrid” journals– that is, traditional subscription-based journals that permit authors –ideally via their funders– to pay a fee to make their article available “Open Access”. [Disclaimer: someone still needs to go journal by journal in the dataset to determine as fact which ones are hybrid journals; I haven’t done this yet].

Different publishers call this option differently (for example Springer’s Open Choice or Taylor & Francis’s Open Select). Whether all these “Open” options clearly offer open licensing allowing not only access in terms of viewing but in terms of reuse still needs to be investigated thoroughly.

As shared in my previous post, the following bar chart visualises the lowest and highest APCs levied by these 11 major publishers (click to enlarge).

Lowest and Highest Article Processing Charges from 11 Selected Publishers as Paid by the Wellcome Trust According to 2012_13 Dataset . Chart by Ernesto Priego
Lowest and Highest Article Processing Charges from 11 Selected Publishers as Paid by the Wellcome Trust According to 2012_13 Dataset . Chart by Ernesto Priego

Let’s look at the data table, including the corresponding number of published outputs:

Lowest and Highest APC paid by Wellcome Trust 2012/13 from 11 Publishers, including number of outputs
Lowest and Highest APC paid by Wellcome Trust 2012/13 from 11 Publishers, including number of outputs

[Please note that as explained above these figures are indicative and it is possible that actual numbers vary under a different refining of the Publisher name field.]

Why do I think it’s important to focus on these figures?

For at least two main reasons:

  1. To create awareness through evidence of the price scale of the “Open Access” options offered by hybrid journals from major publishers as paid by the Wellcome Trust (a forward-thinking institution pioneering in their support of Open Access; for their OA policy, go here).
  2. To create awareness of the prevalence of at least three of the publishers, indicating that many scientists still favour them with their work.

It is a truism that “Open Access” was developed in part as a response to “the serials crisis” (on the term, see for example Panitch and Michalak 2005). Major or “legacy” publishers that traditionally have based their business model on institutional subscriptions (toll or paywall) have reacted to Open Access government and institutional mandates by offering “Open” options through Article Processing Charges.

However, these figures reveal what to me at least appears as a mere inversion of the business model, reliant on academic outputs for which considerable funding and/or financial means seems to be taken for granted. The high prices charged to libraries in the paywalled model seem to have been shifted now to the researchers through, ideally, their funding agencies.

It is very important these observations are not misinterpreted as a knee-jerk reaction against all APCs. I edit a journal that charges an APC (and offers its complete waiving as well). Publishing costs money. Enabling Open Access costs money. But does it cost as much as reflected by the APCs in the Wellcome Trust dataset? That is the question.

On the one hand I hope having some awareness of the current hybrid journal APCs charged by major traditional publishers helps provide a point of reference where to judge the current APCs charged by born-Open Access, researcher-led journals like the ones published by Ubiquity Press and other innovative publishers. On the other hand, I believe it is time for those of us involved in enabling Open Access to refine our critical engagement with the term and the current publishing landscape.

The average of all APCs (excluding the £13,000 one for a Palgrave book) in the Wellcome Trust dataset is £1820.01. There is an APC payment for what appears as a single article of £6000. If only all research funders were like the Wellcome Trust. With these rates, who is being excluded from Open Access publishing as currently implemented by the major publishers in scientific/academic publishing? Arts and Humanities research cannot possibly compete. Aren’t we clearly rushing towards a new “OA serials crisis”, where publishing is still dominated by the same major publishers who partly led to the serials crisis in the first place?

Many more questions remain to be asked. Let’s start with those above.

Quick Insights from the Wellcome Trust Paid APCs 2012/13 Dataset

[Updated. I replaced the spreadsheet on figshare twice as a couple of publisher names had to be corrected. This left a version with 101 unique publisher names –note that some might still be subsumable to other publisher names in the set.

I have also corrected the first bar chart and added another one two on this post. Please bear in mind there might still be errors in the source data. The spreadsheet, write-up and charts are shared “as is” and “as available”; the information presented reflects the data as manually curated and refined in the latest dataset version at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.966427.

This means that the number of publishers and costs and outputs associated to each publisher will depend on how the Publisher field has been refined; other quantifications and visualisations of the original dataset or other versions that have been refined differently are therefore likely to differ. I do not work for nor am I currently associated with the Wellcome Trust or any of the publishers mentioned here; these are not “official” figures and are openly shared here as research work in progress and should therefore be taken in that spirit].

In March 2014 the Wellcome Trust released a dataset via figshare giving information on their funding of Article Processing Charges in 2012/13.

The dataset  includes all papers that the Trust is aware of paying money for.

Cameron Neylon subsequently shared a dataset on figshare (and github) with some of the inconsistencies refined:

Neylon, Cameron (2014): Wellcome Trust Article Processing Charges by Article 2012/13. figshare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.964812

I worked with his version of the  dataset and manually refined inconsistencies in the Publisher field (same publishers appeared under different names and spellings and other text formatting issues). I did not refine the journal titles.

I also focused on 11 publishers from the dataset and obtained totals as well as their maximum and minimum APCs.

I shared this version of the spreadsheet as

Priego, Ernesto; Neylon, Cameron (2014): Wellcome Trust APC spend (2012-13) Spreadsheet with Publisher Names Refined. figshare.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.966427

Some figures that stand out:

  • Number of Publishers (once refined): 101
  • Number of Published Outputs in the dataset: 2127
  • Total amount paid in APCs according to the dataset: £3,884,787.52
  • Highest APC in the dataset: £13,200.00, for the monograph: ‘Fungal Disease in Britain and the United States 1850-2000’ (Palgrave Macmillan)
  • Highest APC payment for an article in the dataset: £6000 for ‘Laboratory Science in Tropical Medicine’, in the Public Service Review journal.
  • Lowest APC in the dataset: £45.94  for the journal article ‘The association between breastfeeding and HIV on postpartum maternal weight changes over 24 months in rural South Africa’  on the American Society for Nutrition Journal.
  • APC average (excluding the £13,000 one for the book) £1820.01
Total Cost (£) Paid by the Wellcome Trust to 11 Selected Publishers  (out of 101 Publishers in complete dataset) . Chart by Ernesto Priego
Total Cost (£) Paid by the Wellcome Trust to 11 Selected Publishers
(out of 101 Publishers in complete dataset) . Chart by Ernesto Priego
Number of Published Outputs Paid by the Wellcome Trust  from 11 Selected Publishers in 2012/13 Chart by Ernesto Priego
Number of Published Outputs Paid by the Wellcome Trust
from 11 Selected Publishers in 2012/13
Chart by Ernesto Priego
Lowest and Highest Article Processing Charges from 11 Selected Publishers as Paid by the Wellcome Trust According to 2012_13 Dataset . Chart by Ernesto Priego
Lowest and Highest Article Processing Charges from 11 Selected Publishers as Paid by the Wellcome Trust According to 2012_13 Dataset . Chart by Ernesto Priego

 

Total Cost (£) charged to Wellcome by Selected Publishers  (inc VAT when charged). Figures from 2012/13 Wellcome Trust Dataset (public domain), including Number of Outputs, Max APC and Min APC. From spreadsheet by Ernesto Priego
Total Cost (£) charged to Wellcome by Selected Publishers (inc VAT when charged). Figures from 2012/13 Wellcome Trust Dataset (public domain), including Number of Outputs, Max APC and Min APC. From spreadsheet by Ernesto Priego

With many thanks to Cameron Neylon.

Hopefully this helps in some way to provide a quicker idea of the average cost of APCs from the major for-profit publishers.

SpotOn London 2013: Interdisciplinary research: what can scientists, humanists and social scientists learn from each other?

Logo Spot On

This year’s SpotOn London conference will take place at the British Library.

I have cancelled my appearance. If I have time I might write a post about it later.

SpotOn is a series of community events for the discussion of how science is carried out and communicated online. The flagship conference is the annual SpotOn London two day event, formerly called Science Online London, and now in its fifth year. They also host monthly SpotOn NYC events in New York City.

This year I’ll be participating in the following workshop:

SpotOn London 2013: Interdisciplinary research: what can scientists, humanists and social scientists learn from each other?
Friday 8 November, 2013 4:30 pm-5:30 pm.

Academics are increasingly turning to interdisciplinary working to maximise the potential of their research. Benefits allegedly include increased access to funding, resources, knowledge and impact (to name but a few) – but how do these partnerships work in real life? What can researchers from polar opposites of the academy learn from each other? And can we ever really get along? This will be an interactive session which will include drafting of a new contract for interdisciplinary scientists, humanist and social scientists.

Coordinator: Dr Philippa Grand (Head of Social Sciences, Palgrave Macmillan, @PalgraveSoc)

Contributors:

  • Dr Simon Bastow, (Senior Research Fellow, LSE Public Policy Group @simonjbastow)
  • Laura Hood (The Conversation, @Lahoo)
  • Des Fitzgerald (Sociologist at Kings College London, @Des_Fitzgerald)
  • Dr Ernesto Priego (Lecturer in Library Science, City University London @ernestopriego)

Session hashtag: #solo13hss