User:Daniel Mietchen/Talks/COASP 2010/Notes: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen
imported>Daniel Mietchen
Line 21: Line 21:


*Benchmark: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Size_of_Wikipedia English Wikipedia]
*Benchmark: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Size_of_Wikipedia English Wikipedia]
:[http://ragesoss.com/blog/2006/11/20/top-10-reasons-why-academics-should-edit-wikipedia/  
:[http://ragesoss.com/blog/2006/11/20/top-10-reasons-why-academics-should-edit-wikipedia/ Top 10 Reasons Why Academics Should Edit Wikipedia]
Top 10 Reasons Why Academics Should Edit Wikipedia]


==Wikis as platforms for scholarly publishing==
==Wikis as platforms for scholarly publishing==

Revision as of 20:03, 3 August 2010

Background

(CC) Image: Public Library of Science
Do journals provide sufficient contextualization for research?
  • For technical reasons, publishing was historically a separate step, performed about once per iteration of the research cycle
  • Publishing every relevant bit of information immediately at each step is technically feasible now, and the remaining hurdles are cultural ones.
  • Wikis allow for systematic linking and thus enhanced contextualization (sidenote: some have argued that links are distracting)
  • Overview of the evolution of wikis and wiki-like environments
Mentions MediaWiki plugin for Wordpress
Etherpad
Google Docs

Wikis as platforms for science communication

Top 10 Reasons Why Academics Should Edit Wikipedia

Wikis as platforms for scholarly publishing

(CC) Image: Encyclopedia of Earth
Encyclopedia of Earth — a wiki with overview articles reviewed by experts, available under CC-BY-SA
"Somewhere at the fringe of science, someone will start using wiki publishing for science publishing."
  • Publication lists (incl. supplementary materials and in principle direct links to the raw data)
See also CoLabScience
  • Knol shares some aspects with wikis and blogs and is already in use for PLoS Currents.

Wikis as platforms for Open Access publishing

Examples: Gyrification, Surface-based morphometry and Chordoma
Also note that Fig. 3 of http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.025.2009 and Fig. 2(III) of http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2010.00020 explain the same thing, original to neither papers

Quality assessment

In principle, any system of peer review can be implemented on a wiki: The usual single-blind as well as double-blind or open peer review, with the reviewers or even authors always or optionally, temporarily or permanently remaining anonymous, with simple accept/ revise/ reject decisions or interactive two-stage or multi-stage discussions, in public or hidden from it (possibly even in part), before and/ or after formal publication.

Some wiki examples:

  1. Scholarpedia
  2. Encyclopedia of Earth
  3. Citizendium

Some non-wiki examples:

  1. Copernicus journals
  2. PLoS journals
  3. Frontiers journals
  4. BMC journals
  5. Semantic Web journal
  6. Rejecta Mathematics
  7. WebMedCentral

Business models

  • Main ones: author-pays, (partial) subscription, philanthropy, advertising, premium services

Opportunities

PD Image
Search by license — not possible yet. Why?
Non-wiki example
MediaWiki as a blog, using Semantic MediaWiki
Also for references

Notes

Essential elements of science publishing:

  • Research
  • Documentation
  • Making things public
  • Integration with previous and future knowledge
  • Discussion