Posted by Rory on January 5th, 2011 @ 10:33 am
Back in 2007 – 2008 a spate of social networking sites for scientists were established. In late 2008 David Bradley found about 20, which he discussed in his post on Social Media for Scientists. Here is David’s list (with his comments):
- Nature Network – uber network from the publishing giant
- BioMedExperts – Scientific social networking
- BioWizard – Blogged up Pubmed search
- Mendeley – Digital paper repository and sharing
- Labmeeting (blog) – Ditto
- YourLabData – socialised LIMS
- SciLink – Sci-Linkedin
- Myexperiment.com – mostly workflows.
- Laboratree.org similar to Researchgate. Not particularly social beyond groups and sharing documents with collaborators, but email is better, and arguably more secure.
- scitizen.com – collaborative science news publishing
- SocialMD – Med-Linkedin
- Ozmosis – Ditto
- DNA Network – network of DNA/genetics bloggers
- ResearchCrossroads – Socialised grant databases
- MyNetResearch – Socialised LIMS at a price
- SciVee – YouTube for scientists (see also Watch with Sciencebase page
- Scientist Solutions – science chat
- Twitter science group and Scientwists list
Although other social networking sites oriented to scientists have appeared in the past two years, e.g. Bitsesize Bio, it’s interesting to note that the initial rush has petered out, and to speculate about why this is so.
Lack of demand?
Is the dearth of new social networking applications for scientists due to lack of demand? Probably not. A number of the ones on the list, including Mendeley, Academia.edu and ResearchGATE (which is not on the list), have each attracted hundreds of thousands of people to sign up, and Mendeley and ResearchGATE have both attracted substantial investments from venture capitalists, demonstrating external belief in the existence of a large market.
Need for time to consolidate?
A more likely reason for the lack of new entries into the market is that users of the social networks need time get used to the relatively new forums for communication the networks offer, and are focussing on one or possibly two existing networks as the networks gradually improve their offering and add new features.
Another possible explanation for the lack of new offerings is that scientists’ needs for collaboration and communication are limited to what the current social networks offer: sharing publications, finding out what others in their field are doing, and seeking answers to research questions. If that’s true then there is limited scope for additional innovation, in which case the market may already have consolidated around the existing providers.
Is there scope for additional innovation? Yes!
A quick glance at Cameron Neylon’s late 2009 post, What should social software for science look like?, however, would seem to indicate that there is still plenty of scope for innovation! Cameron lists ten things that social software for scientists should be able to do:
- SS4S will promote engagement with online scientific objects and through this encourage and provide paths to those with enthusiasm but insufficient expertise to gain sufficient expertise to contribute effectively (see e.g. Galaxy Zoo). This includes but is certainly not limited to collaborations between professional scientists. These are merely a special case of the general.
- SS4S will measure and reward positive contributions, including constructive criticism and disagreement (Stack overflow vs YouTube comments). Ideally such measures will value quality of contribution rather than opinion, allowing disagreement to be both supported when required and resolved when appropriate.
- SS4S will provide single click through access to available online scientific objects and make it easy to bring references to those objects into the user’s personal space or stream (see e.g. Friendfeed “Like” button)
- SS4S should provide zero effort upload paths to make scientific objects available online while simultaneously assuring users that this upload and the objects are always under their control. This will mean in many cases that what is being pushed to the SS4S system is a reference not the object itself, but will sometimes be the object to provide ease of use. The distinction will ideally be invisible to the user in practice barring some initial setup (see e.g. use of Posterous as a marshalling yard).
- SS4S will make it easy for users to connect with other users and build networks based on a shared interest in specific research objects (Friendfeed again).
- SS4S will help the user exploit that network to collaboratively filter objects of interest to them and of importance to their work. These objects might be results, datasets, ideas, or people.
- SS4S will integrate with the user’s existing tools and workflow and enable them to gradually adopt more effective or efficient tools without requiring any severe breaks (see Mendeley/Citeulike/Zotero/Papers and DropBox)
- SS4S will work reliably and stably with high performance and low latency.
- SS4S will come to where the researcher is working both with respect to new software and also unusual locations and situations requiring mobile, location sensitive, and overlay technologies (Layar, Greasemonkey, voice/gesture recognition – the latter largely prompted by a conversation I had with Peter Murray-Rust some months ago).
- SS4S will be trusted and reliable with a strong community belief in its long term stability. No single organization holds or probably even can hold this trust so solutions will almost certainly need to be federated, open source, and supported by an active development community.
By my reckoning the existing providers have made a good start on 1,2,5,6, and 8, but not 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 all involve integration with data which is not internally generated from the social network but which scientists access or generate independent of the application. Thus far there is not much evidence that the existing social networks are taking steps to rectify this limitation, which is understandable because (a) they have limited resources, (b) there is always immediate pressure from users to improve existing features and add new features, and (c) it’s usually more difficult to integrate with external sources of data and/or applications than to extend the capability of your own application.
But the fact remains that, taking Cameron’s list as a benchmark, social networks for scientists are far from a finished product. Cameron’s list, moreover, is in my view not exhaustive. A true social network for scientists should give them the capability to share their research data. I have argued previously that this would require:
- An individual, user-centric focus
- The ability for individual users to control with whom they share data, and when
- The ability to create records with structure so that experimental data can be recorded
- The ability to create links between records
- An audit trail of changes made to records
- A messaging capability
The existing social networks have 1 (a user centric focus) and some have 6 (a messaging capability), but none have 2 – 5, i.e. support for managing research data.
Where will the innovation come from?
So there is lots of scope for additional innovation. In next week’s post I’m going to discuss where the innovation is likely to come from — existing social networks for scientists, general social media sites like Twitter and Quora, and/or new applications.