Re: [Myexperiment-discuss] myExperiment at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory: why web 2.0 is failing biology

[Jiten Bhagat]

Hi Paul,

> The second one may be helped out by having some means of stating a 
> persons workflow is a 'gold standard' or has been highly sited / 
> downloaded / viewed.
> Some big gold merit star on the workflow for example. 

I'm working with an MSc student here in Manchester on trust and 
reputation in myExperiment, tackling exactly this idea of building, 
depicting and promoting reputation. I'd be very interested in hearing 
from others on this - what factors are important in judging how good a 
workflow is?

Also, we will be introducing (hopefully early April), a workflow "health 
checker" system whereby the current status of workflows is shown to users.

> Oh, and a means of directly linking a publication to a workflow and 
> not just a file. I would quite like to advertise my NAR paper along 
> with the workflows, and not just include a paragraph in the workflow 
> description text. 

You can currently add citations to a workflow entry on myexperiment - 
scroll down to the tabbed sections when viewing a workflow and you 
should see a "citations" section.

In the future you will also have the option to create a "pack" in which 
you can group related things together, both internal and external to 
myExperiment.

Jits



Paul Fisher wrote:
> The second one may be helped out by having some means of stating a 
> persons workflow is a 'gold standard' or has been highly sited / 
> downloaded / viewed.
> Some big gold merit star on the workflow for example.
>
> Oh, and a means of directly linking a publication to a workflow and 
> not just a file. I would quite like to advertise my NAR paper along 
> with the workflows, and not just include a paragraph in the workflow 
> description text.
>
> cheers,
> Paul.
>
>
> Duncan Hull wrote:
> > Robert Stevens wrote:
> > > doesn't this miss the point?
> >
> > It may miss many points, because it is aimed at publishers e.g. 
> > subtext is "how can science publishers make money from web 2.0".
> >
> > However, I thought it made some points that are relevant to the 
> > success or failure of myExperiment and other web 2.0 tools.
> >
> > 1. scientists won't use new tools that don't save them time
> > 2. scientists won't use new tools  without career incentives to do so 
> > (accreditation)
> >
> > The first problem is something myExperiment can *really* do something 
> > about. The second one is a much harder problem...
> >
> > Duncan
> >
> > Stating the bleedin' obvious...
> > [1] 
> > http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/2008/02/14/why-web-20-is-failing-in-biology/ 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Myexperiment-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/myexperiment-discuss