I agree that the term is quite confusing.

The analogy to Web 2.0 is illogical as the main advancement was the creation of consumers that do also produce. It would be foolish to see productive activity in Science as revolutionary enough to call it Science 2.0.

For me the real revolution of Science is mainly the connection between scientists that collaborate (nearly!) worldwide and the share of knowledge directly also before finishing a research project.

+1 for the term being confusing, I would not agree that it is BS, because it had/has a good marketing power. As long as you do not ask for the details, it is a catchy term and sounds reasonable enough.

The revolution of Science 2.0 is certainly due to collaboration enablement; I would agree to that one, even adding the (partial) shift in mentality/culture to releasing data and early thoughts without worrying (too much) about IPR.

It seems quite important to clarify the distinction to Web 2.0. In fact, also in Science 2.0 the consumers become producers, in the sense that before an individual or small group produced scientific value and published their findings. Others consumed that article. With Science 2.0 these others, i.e. those who were the consumers preciously can get involved in the production. In addition, similar tools are used, e.g. social networking platforms. What do you think?

I think the whole „2.0“ boom we experience nowadays is a marketing strategy, but anyway… the problem with collaboration is, that one has to assure to get the hidden information. People can have different reasons for not sharing their knowledge and IPR is not the main one.

There are two main reasons:

1. Introverts: Taking into account that they do want to participate, but need to reflect until they feel in no doubt about their participation, there has been a bit step towards their inclusion by giving the possibility to participate via Web 2.0-Technologies. Besides, also extroverts do benefit from being able to correct mistaken inputs.

2. Social status: Being the only one with worries in a team does not make one feel confident to fight for his opinion. On the other hand, it benefits every team to be aware of all doubts. A possibility to handle this issue can also be Web 2.0-Technologies. Here everybody can raise doubts without raising his hand in the meeting.

The importance of IPR inside nowadays virtual teams is the answer of each individual to the question if it is important for him “to make the world a better place” or “to be the one that makes it a better place”…

Have come over here from Sven's original stream - I like what Lucas is saying here. Science 2.0 is the movement to interaction/collaboration - but using modern communication tools and networks to enhance the collaboration. As Jaqueline points out above, many individuals are more comfortable contributing from afar, or from behind the curtain. Web communities encourage the conversation. I think that one of the challenges may be to authenticate the background and the scientific contribution itself - but why is that any different than validating an author and details from a hard copy printed resource?

Just for clarification, Alan refers to the discussion on 'How important is storytelling and visualization for your science?' (https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_important_is_storytelling_and_visualization_for_your_science), which actually initiated our current conversation.

Apart from that, I like the summary above, and fully agree. Thanks!

Science per se might not (yet) undergo a paradigm shift, but the way in which we communicate science is chaining certainly, also making researches more aware about the appropriate ways how to communicate their findings. As this partially also impacts the way experts release their early ideas, models and data, I still believe that the way we approach scientific questions will evolve.

With this collaboration support in mind, and the comment above about authentication, who has an answer to the second part of my question, i.e. what do you see as the 3 mostly required Science 2.0 services?

@Camelia: Thanks for the clarifications and list of 3 (2) services. Very useful links, indeed.

I think there may also be a need to somehow find commonality with ( or distinguish with) the concept of open science, since science 2.0 tends to focus on the greater ability (through technological inter-mediated means) to participate and collaborate in scientific activities. This is largely what the concept of open science attempts to foster as well (although adding dimensions of legal access to data, tools and outputs). See also a blog post by Francois Grey which nicely lays out the differences between citizen cyber science and open science, which also relate to Science 2.0: http://www.billionbrainblog.com/?p=128

I see Science 2.0 a bit more radically changing the world of science. Think of THE PAPER about a topic, a publication continuously changing through the work of peers presenting the state of the art at every time a reader accesses it in the Web. It's something like a Wikipedia article but at a higher level of control bolstered by something like the RG process of verifying users' (=professionals in the field) credentials. The act of researching, writing and reviewing is a single collaborative process step managed by the online community then.

Caveat: we need a different evaluation system for fellows at institutions that does not foster fraud and selfishness (IF, first author rating, ...). Unfortunately, that might appear as the main drawback of this idea.

Good thoughts. Playing with different concepts and possible wordings usually helps in shaping discussions, but has the risk to end in terminological spaghetti. So let’s move a bit away from this and rather look into core characteristics (and their supporting services).

Modern publication, which makes use of the great technology that we have, is certainly an important aspect of science in 2013. The need to finally revolutionize reviewing is only one aspect; another being the connection of conducted experiments, used tools and data.

An open approach to all of the above has been recognised as an optimal – but not always feasible – solution. Still, several principles should be followed (including privacy and IPR). Maybe we need an ethic code for science in the 21st century…