When I delve deep into the interplay of technological efforts and babelian disparities among technology vendors, it looks a chaotic transition of the state of Web from one to another. And the transition is quite volatile that the process towards an equilibrium can have cascading effect to settle in an unexpected state.

We welcome any technology that comes in our way, and start creating applications around it. Huge documentation follows with a number of websites created to highlight the same. Freelancers and small business houses start building business around any single idea. New economy is created and communities are built up in their own ways. Many virtual civilizations, unaware of each others, grow up in months.

Big companies take up a few ideas and create another version of a platform or a product to popularise it with a billion dollar marketing budget. Even companies will not stop to add another web browser to this already overcrowded browser-baskets. A small innovation can make a big news if publicity is well organized.

We are basically trying to create our own language to speak and everybody separately. The communication process is becoming increasingly difficult and a big economy is even growing to ensure interoperability and inter-communication capabilities. Does it look funny? But it is true with Web 2.0.

Where is an intention to crowdsource the already working platform or product? Innovation can never be Innovation2.0 with Web2.0. In fact, we are 2 down zero now!

With the initial success of Web 2.0, the essence of this set of useful technology tools have penetrated the hard-shell of scientific collaboration and publishing process. The ubiquitous things like tags, social networks, and blogs have created a new dimension to the approach of scientific publishing. Popularly called Science 2.0, the new approach facilitates publishing raw results of research and a broader platform for collaborative research.

On one hand, a section of the scientific community hails this phenomenon as a natural progression whereas others treat this as a major source of controversies about retention of patent and intellectual copyrights. There have been quite a few websites that have started using this approach whereas major print journals have started adding Web 2.0 tools to their websites. Anyway, Science 2.0 has already been here.

This new approach revolves round the principle of open access, and is perceived as more productive. Going by arguments of numerous open discussions and continual refinements by the scientific community through the last several centuries, this approach, crowdsourcing, reaffirms our unchanged direction of accumulating scientific knowledge.

The obvious pitfall in this approach is the possibility of premature exposure of research ideas and findings, thereby, resulting in breach in intellectual property rights if rival researchers exploit the situation. This may also result in hard-feeling among the genuine researchers and may jeopardise the basic safety and genuine assessment of patents.