I recently attended ScienceOnline09, and gave a joint panel discussion/presentation with Moshe from Jove. SciVee's portion of the presentation slides are attached to this post below.
It was great to get feedback and ask the audience questions about the use of video in science communication. One of the questions we discussed was: How many of you would consider uploading video to a site like Jove or SciVee? and why or why not? Attendees that said they would said that they would use both Jove and SciVee for different reasons depending on their goal. If they wanted to publish a paper with video they would go to Jove and if they wanted to upload posters and slides or something previously published they would go to SciVee. Attendees that said they would not use either service either gave reason that it’s too difficult to convince their PIs who are too conservative or they feel their work was too boring to create a video. We asked how we could make uploading more attractive to PIs? Attendees stated that it would take more incentives for uploading to help convince their PI's.
I wonder how people reading this post would answer this question and would love your feedback!
To the people who think their work is too boring for a video: I think they should let the community decide that - isn't that what scientific communication is all about? Research often seems less interesting to the person doing it because they already know all about it, but other people may have a very different perspective. If at least one person thinks the work is worth doing, there will definitely be another person who wants to hear about it.
I think the "boring" was meant with regard to filming a guy who is just pipetting liquids or something like that. Otherwise, I have already published in both SciVee and JoVE, so I'm biased :-)
I see your point, although I remember when I was in grad school I would have loved videos of standard techniques that I hadn't yet learned. I guess that isn't really science, though...
JoVE does have a set of "basic protocols", which of course is something different than seeing someone pipette the most advanced molecular method ever :-)
I reckon that the biggest deal with a PI is the perceived time it would take to make a video and the low perceived value. If something takes negligible time to do, few people would object to trying it even if it's not seen as being that useful. I reckon that the other thing is availability of equipment (yes, I know that you can make a pubcast with a webcam, but people might prefer something a bit more professional), and lack of experience in making videos. I mean, you wouldn't want to make a good paper look rubbish because you think that any video you make will look amateur-ish. So the implication is that you'll have to spend time on the video since you'll have a lot of learning to do.
And then there is the elephant in the room which is that this sort of thing is just "not done" in general and seen as a waste of time by the sort of goal-obsessed PI who measures life by papers. And in some fields (particularly genetics/biotech stuff), I'm hearing more and more stories from my friends about PIs who lose sight of being human after a few years of being on the tenure-track, and get a bit over-protective about their stuff. Not that this is a problem that we can approach directly... we just have to chip away at those around the edges who look up from their pipetting once in a while.
I'm revisting the site just to see of you hadn't moved things along. Still pretty quiet. I think the point here comes down to ease of use. Attendees will always give reasons as to why a video of their presentation shouldn't be created. "their work was too boring to create a video", it's too hard, the dog ate my slides, ad infintum.
The idea, i would have thought is to make "capturing content" so simple that it becomes the rule rather than the exception.Let me give you an idea of conference videos we've just seen in Australia. http://qn2009vc.usq.edu.au/
You have to register, like here, which is another common proble we have.
You could watch the presentations streaming live (and ask questions). By the time presenters were finished you could watch the recording. OK some are very boring (unless you like technical networking stuff). But that's the point isn't it?
Isn't the aim here that we must use the video to capture a small commiunity's discussions, almost invariably "at a conference", to present an overview and then, on the same community 'channel' create libraries of journals, so institutions don't have to pay a third party publisher.