Science 3.0?

1. May 2009

Via Academic Productivity: Interesting comment, What can Science learn from Google? I especially like that it starts with a quote by George Box (you know I like them ;-)

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Wide OpenThe article takes the provocative stance that we do not need models any more to describe the world, as petabyte data clouds combined with massive computing power are able to correlate data.

Data without a model is just noise. But faced with massive data, this approach to science — hypothesize, model, test — is becoming obsolete. [...] Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all.

I humbly disagree. Understanding needs models, predictions need models. Of course, in order to find models, correlations – probably found by using computers – can show the way.

Add to Connotea


It is not only content that counts…

5. November 2008

rhetoric also counts in publishing papers: see this blog entry by Jose Quesada from Academic Productivity, “Writing style” vs. “content”: Watson & Crick’s example.

Add to Connotea


Organic Photovoltaics Publications

20. May 2008

Today I came across a graph I prepared two years ago: the number of papers published per year in scientific journals within the field of organic photovoltaics. OPV in WOS (Number of Publications per Year) - 2007.pngI just updated it using Web Of Science, up to year 2007.

In case you want to reproduce the graph, I used the topic

“organic photovoltaic cell” or “organic photovoltaics” or “organic solar cell*”

for organic photovoltaics and related phrases, and

“bulk heterojunction solar cell*” or “bulk-heterojunction solar cell*” or “polymer photovoltaic” or “polymer fullerene photovoltaic” or “polymer solar cell*” or “polymer fullerene solar cell*” or “polymer-fullerene solar cell*” or “polymer-fullerene solar cell*”

Web of Science can also combine search sets in the history, so that publications matching both sets are not counted twice; the result is shown as the curve “both” in the graph. Probably, by a more appropriate choice of search terms, even some more papers can be found. For instance, I should have included small molecules.

The result is not strictly growing exponentially, but the interest still is increasing continuously. Let’s hope that the commercial interest will have similar growth rates soon;-)

Add to Connotea


Science Two-O: Openness

22. April 2008

M. Mitchell Waldrop from Scientific American wrote an interesting piece on Open Access Science. I found it to be stimulating, even though I am not in yet. Read it here.

Add to Connotea


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers