MyPost is a free web space dedicated to AllBioinformatics users having an attitude of communication and networking. Its main purpose is to guarantee an open access to scientific information for the benefit of global knowledge. Either users will be able to fully express their views and opinions on relevant scientific topics and to find relevant posts and threads which might be an answer to their problems.
There are two categories of posts:
- Reviewed Posts (RP) by a peer-moderator which adhere to a Ethics Code to be in Communication (ECC);
- Free Posts (FP) where the control of the peer-moderator comes after the post publication.
Controls are only performed by scientific moderators whose aim is to apply the ECC.
During the creation of a RP the user is asked to specify which scientific level they want to target for scientific divulgation. There are 3 different levels:
- Educational topics;
- Intermediate research topics (search topics from young to advanced researcher);
- Advanced search topics (only for selected scientific topics where the audience is specific to an research area and all users have many years of experience).
The only controls are then carried out by scientific moderators that are meant to enforce ECC.
Through this new web communication initiative, AllBioinformatics puts the scientific operator at the center of the project, giving him/her the tools for digital communication, protecting at the same time the image of the scientist.
At the moment we make three groups and a few categories of related mypost. We also pleased to receive suggestions for other groups and/or categories related to it
- Science topics (RP)
- Current science (FP)
- Discussion (FP)
- Bioinformatics topics (FP)
- Technical topics (FP)
- Benchmark topics (FP)
- Bits and bugs topics (FP)
- Discussion (FP)
- Biology topics(RP)
- Discussion (FP)
Foreword to Ethics Code to be in Communication and MyPost section
AllBioinformatics’ Ethics Code to be in Communication (ECC) was made to protect both the network users and to improve some communication aspects of current scientifc social network.
To test the social impact of a new scientific network tool, which we call MyPost, a through analysis of the most common social and science specific social tools available today, along with a survey among scientific operators that use digital communication tools daily.
In this survey, carried among a restricted sample of some of our potential users, six simple questions were asked:
a) What do you think about the current free tools for scientific communication available today?(1)
b) What are the potential advantages that these tools can give you professionally?
c) What are the advantages for the scientific community?
d) What are the cons of these tools, both from a scientific operator and as a community?
e) What changes would you make to these tools?
f) Do you think a scientific moderator or peer-moderation is important when a post is submitted and commented on?
The results from the survey are the follows:
a) More than 60% of the sample view scientific communication social tools favorably.
b) The main advantage is the possibility for a user to start from a young age to build an independent professional role, both in visibility and scientific credibility.
c) A community gain would be the increased number of interactions and information sharing between scientific operators.
d) The negative aspects are mostly about:
- the fear that a post can affect the professional role;
- scarce or no control on the post feedback;
- redundant information that is completely devoid of scientific importance.
e) As expected there were no suggested radical changes in the communication tool.
f) Surprisingly about 90% of the sample has expressed a positive opinion on the peer-moderator figure intended as moderation aid more than a peer-reviewer.
What is a peer-moderator
The peer-moderator is not an expert in the field but needs to have a good general knowledge and good skills in scientific moderation, whose only objective is not to evaluate the importance of the post, but moderate the discussion, suggesting and more importantly teaching good rules of scientific communication in the network, through a direct approach if peer-moderator/user when necessary.
In conclusion the peer-moderator duty is to make the users comply with the proposed ethical code to maximize the output of the scientific communication, respecting the competence and opinion of all involved actors.
(1) Because of privacy concerns the networking tools examined are not reported.