Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
FIGURE 2.3 A screenshot of the revision history for the MOST group protocol for their mo-
lecular beam epitaxy (MBE) system used to make semiconductor layers for solar cells. Simply
by clicking the “undo” next to any edit, the page can be revised, thus discouraging vandalism
“softly”. Users Passionek and Jrozario are student researchers in MOST, but the revision list
also demonstrates how the Appropedia community assists improving the page—in this ex-
ample, by using bots to automate corrections back to definitions found in Wikipedia for new
users or for new students.
More scientists using this approach would almost certainly improve the scale of the benefits
In a vibrant and well-populated open-source research community, maintaining literature re-
views would become a community affair and not the primary work of a single group. If the
majority of researchers simply added their own work, this type of initiative would be signiic-
antly improved. Similarly, in many fields, custom equipment designs, methods and software
are kept private to an institution or research group—if these were provided openly in some
form of web site, via a wiki protocol or “instructable”, the benefits for all in the particular field.
would be enhanced appreciably.
The results of these open-source research experiments indicate that scientific research can
be accelerated and the results disseminated faster if an open-source research methodology is
used. The pragmatic, purely self-serving benefits for most academic research groups to adopt
this methodology are clear. You will get more money, beter students, more citations, and have
a larger impact on your field. In the work that my group focuses on—encouraging sustain-
ability via technology development—ethical considerations also play a role. Is it ethical not
to provide sustainability-related research information for free to others if so doing would be
more likely to create a sustainable society?
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search