Leveraging the Knowledge of Our Peers: Online Communities Hold the Promise to Enhance Scientific Research

Howard Rheingold would describe the following article as technologies of cooperation

The article is authored by Thomas J. Sharpton, Arpan A. Jhaveri

Thomas J. Sharpton is a co-founder of SIPHS LLC, and is a Ph.D. candidate in microbiology at University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States. E-mail: [email protected]. Arpan A. Jhaveri is a co-founder of SIPHS LLC, and holds a master's degree in computer science from Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Leveraging the Knowledge of Our Peers: Online Communities Hold the Promise to Enhance Scientific Research

An online revolution is changing the way we think about obtaining information. By facilitating interaction between users in an online community, new tools harness the collective wisdom of their participants to identify and critically review information. Rather than simply reading published encyclopedia material, Wikipedia , for example, allows users to add and amend information in its encyclopedia, creating a dynamic ever-changing document subject to the review of the community. An entry by one user may subsequently spawn an additional entry by another user on the same subject. These community-based tools, which have existed outside the scientific domain for some time now, have great potential to enhance research by improving the ability to share scientific information online.

For example, Connotea developed by the Nature Publishing Group, is a reference management and social bookmarking tool. When researchers come across articles of interest, they can bookmark the article on their Connotea account and apply descriptive identifiers, known as tags, to the article for organizational purposes. Other users can then search for tags (such as “avian flu” or “SH2 domain”) and see what their peers have bookmarked as being relevant online information for the subject at hand. Because other members have already determined which online sources of information are important for a given subject (by taking the time to bookmark the item), users new to the subject need to spend less time searching for valuable information. When new information is added to the community database, all members subsequently benefit.

We have developed SIPHS , a tool that leverages an online community in a different fashion: rather than searching for online documents, users search for community members with a particular knowledge set. We established SIPHS in response to a shared frustration. The Internet was designed to put people in touch, but it is quite difficult to identify individuals that possess very specific, often highly technical knowledge.

Members of SIPHS can search for peer-generated information, ask questions of other members, and provide peer support

The SIPHS community is currently comprised of more than 200 biology and biomedical researchers spread across 30 countries. Members of the community are tagged with their respective areas of expertise, and queries for information are submitted via an electronic message to experts in relevant fields. By enabling direct communication with knowledgeable and experienced individuals, refining searches becomes easier (as searching is no longer keyword dependent), background information is more quickly clarified, and new ideas are more rapidly spawned. In essence, this mimics the offline world in that the best source of information is often a colleague who has experience with the problem at hand. SIPHS is self-funded and, like all the tools mentioned in this discussion, free to use.

Other tools allow users to identify what other researchers are saying about particular pieces of information. Postgenomic , for example, identifies comments made on life science blogs that are pertinent to particular journal papers. Users search for a paper of interest and are returned a collection of reviews on the particular paper made by the life science blogging community. Authors can view what others are saying about their publications, and researchers can get an additional side of a paper's story. Often, hearing what a peer has to say on a particular subject can help piece together a puzzle or form a critical opinion.

Finally, other tools utilize a community of experts to curate database information. As an example, consider the Neurospora crassa Community Annotation Project (CAP) ), designed by the Broad Institute . Gene annotation is a critical step in transforming a genome sequence into a useful biological research tool, but annotation is difficult and time consuming. By allowing experts in the Neurospora community to evaluate and amend the annotation data for the organism, the CAP adds an extra layer of evaluation to the database and accelerates the annotation process. It may very well be that this type of genome annotation method becomes a standard among sequencing centers in the near future.

Community-based tools have the potential to revolutionize access to scientific information but, like all tools, are not without their limitations. First, the information obtained by community tools is subject to the biases of the users generating the information. As a result, we must continue to critically evaluate the information received from these tools. Fortunately, community members often, through civil discourse or amendments, provide checks on bad or incorrect information coming from other members, minimizing these types of problems. Second, these tools are not designed to replace conventional search engines. We should be clear that search engines provide a great utility to the scientific community and certainly have their place in research, especially when probing a new subject for ideas.

Comments

[cheap handbags]

I hope you will keep updating your content constantly as you have one dedicated reader here.

[designer handbags]

Hi, where did you get this information can you please support this with some proof or you may say some good reference as I and others will really appreciate. This information is really good and I will say will always be helpful if we try it risk free. So if you can back it up. That will really help us all. And this might bring some good repute to you.

[Red sole shoes]

So much interesting contents here! You can go to see promotional gifts ,just have a look,right now.

[Belstaff chaquetas]

It's great to hear from you and see what you've been up to. In your blog I feel your enthusiasm for life. thank you.

[Secret Commission System]

It seems like a good idea to do that...

[ノースフェイス]

羅津、パイオニア、男性は3場所は通年不凍港であり、両方が北朝鮮政府の経済と貿易港によって承認されたままです。

[グッチ]

阿部さんは「亡くなった父から『拡幅するかもしれない』と聞いていたが、なぜ今なのか。拡幅されれば、別の場所で仮店舗を探さなければならない」と嘆く。同商店街によると、商店街の約２０店舗のうち、約８割が営業再開にこぎ着けたが、阿部さんと同じ事情を抱えているという。