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

[Paul Fisher]

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/