There are lots of interesting stories about Science 2.0. But in the context of this study we are uncovering a far richer and more substantial infrastructure, that we consider the emergent self-organising institutional setting of Science 2.0.
First there is a self-regulation effort for open access. While many funding agencies are paying more attention to open access, the great surge in open access behaviour by research institutions is mainly due to self-regulation.
Secondly, there is an emerging meso-level infrastructure for coordinating this bottom-up effort. The market for “crowdsourcing” and “open innovation” solution is exploding: companies such as Innocentive, ChallengePost, and many others offer solutions for reaching out to a mass of potential innovators. Not only they offer the technological platform: they offer most importantly the process design, and the database of people. Recently, open source efforts have become available like Pybossa. Other nonprofit project include SciFundChallenge, which help citizens finding interesting challenges to participate in.
Interoperability standards are becoming available for example in the field of annotation, in order to facilitate data sharing and collaboration beyond the interoperability of bibliographies (which can now be considered a fait accompli ).
Culture is also changing, with increasing reward for scientists who share. Alternative metrics are being developed to measure reputation, such as AltMetrics and PeerProduction, as described in a previous post.
So probably what we need is not just old-style top-down policies and regulation on Science 2.0, but also a softer mix of tools, methodologies and people.