Re: CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 2016-05-10 08:39, Herbert Van de Sompel wrote:

Sarven,

I am a fan of your linked research work. But I think it's a bit unjust
to characterize D-Lib Magazine as fitting in the category "via paper and
desktop/print centric tools and formats."



D-Lib is, and has since its start in 1995, been an HTML-only journal
that has served the Digital Library community very well. Just recently,
I published a paper [1] in D-Lib in which the editors agreed  to allow
me to diverge from their template in order to demonstrate the Robust
Links [2] approach to combat reference rot in scholarly communication.


Thank you Herbert.

I'm aware of D-Lib, and it is fantastic that they gave room to exemplify 
your work to the greatest extent possible.


I was merely pointing at the workshop in particular because that's the 
primary point of engagement with the community. Is it encouraging the 
methods to share, reuse, reproduce that it stands behind? Oscar's second 
email certainly comes across that way (and that's a lot more reassuring 
then the first - at least to me).


There is much more to be said about encouraging and enabling the 
community (which was discussed a number of times in these mailing lists 
which I'm sure you well know). The point that tends to circle back 
around is that, if you ask a researcher to submit in X, they will most 
certainly submit in X. They will also pass that knowledge (the whole 
process) to their colleagues. So, if we for instance ask researchers 
coming into the field to embrace Webby submissions, we should be able to 
phase out desktop/print mentality especially in Web Science.


None of this is to suggest that people should be using tools that they 
don't want or can - needless to say, we need to be considerate about 
accessibility - but rather taking measures to have some interoperability 
between the research output, instead of sending it out to a black hole. 
It is neither to suggest that print is bad. The fundamental difference 
here is that, some of the formats and mediums that we ask the community 
to expose their work on the Web (of all places) tend to be severely 
limited right from the start. I think we can do better.


To take this workshop as an example, its submission requirements is no 
different than the calls from events that work with the "publishers" 
that are practically indifferent about any of this as long as it reduces 
their costs and maximises profits on all fronts. My point: the fact that 
D-Lib embraces the Web/HTML and friends is entirely hidden in this call. 
What remains is the expertise that (new) researchers compile during the 
process of submitting to this work - which tends to encourage the opposite.


Again, I'm merely suggesting that the voice of the community adapts to 
the state of the art. Technology is not the core problem. We always have 
social problems :)


Aside: it took "Linked Science" *4 years* to come around to this point.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Apr/0291.html
https://twitter.com/LinkedScience/status/729978893160026113

What changed? Absolutely nothing on the technology end since everything 
was there right from the beginning - I've even demonstrated that at the 
time just to make the obvious point (via which is now known as 
https://dokie.li/ ). As far as I can see, the essential change appears 
to be on the social end.



We had tried to achieve the same with a paper about reference rot in
PLOS ONE [3] but our request was declined.


I was introduced to it by Shawn Jones at WWW2016: Persistent URIs Must 
Be Used To Be Persistent.



While I agree that D-Lib does not represent an incarnation of your
intended paradigm shift, I really don't think they are the enemy either.


Pardon me but I had no intention or need to mark anyone as an an enemy 
:) Focus is to encourage/enable researchers, organizers, institutions to 
shift while trying to keep it within reach by pinging the folks in Web 
Science, not all sciences.


This is especially why "Linked Research" is a proposed initiative to 
move towards. It is all open for discussion, and there are number of 
ways to engage. https://linkedresearch.org/ . Never asked or demanded 
must haves on the technologies outside of what's "Webby". Not "selling" 
a tool here. :)



BTW: Maybe you could consider supporting Robust Links in your work. It's
all about long-term access and integrity of the web-based scholarly
record and hence should be of interest to you.


Thanks for bring this up. I think we already cover those use cases in 
dokieli, but added 
https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli/issues/41#issuecomment-218147564 
to keep it in the radar in any case. I will take a closer look.


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i


Cheers

Herbert

[1] Van de Sompel, H., and Nelson, M.L. (2015) Reminiscing About 15
Years of Interoperability Efforts. D-Lib Magazine, 21(11/12).
DOI:10.1045/november2015-vandesompel,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompel

[2] Robust Links spec. 

Re: CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

[Herbert Van de Sompel]

Sarven,

I am a fan of your linked research work. But I think it's a bit unjust to 
characterize D-Lib Magazine as fitting in the category "via paper and 
desktop/print centric tools and formats." 

D-Lib is, and has since its start in 1995, been an HTML-only journal that has 
served the Digital Library community very well. Just recently, I published a 
paper [1] in D-Lib in which the editors agreed  to allow me to diverge from 
their template in order to demonstrate the Robust Links [2] approach to combat 
reference rot in scholarly communication. We had tried to achieve the same with 
a paper about reference rot in PLOS ONE [3] but our request was declined. 

While I agree that D-Lib does not represent an incarnation of your intended 
paradigm shift, I really don't think they are the enemy either. 

BTW: Maybe you could consider supporting Robust Links in your work. It's all 
about long-term access and integrity of the web-based scholarly record and 
hence should be of interest to you.

Cheers

Herbert

[1] Van de Sompel, H., and Nelson, M.L. (2015) Reminiscing About 15 Years of 
Interoperability Efforts. D-Lib Magazine, 21(11/12). 
DOI:10.1045/november2015-vandesompel, 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompel

[2] Robust Links spec. http://robustlinks.mementoweb.org/spec/ 


[3] Klein, M., Van de Sompel, H., Sanderson, R., Shankar, H., Balakireva, L., 
Zhou K., and Tobin, R. (2014) Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles 
Suffers from Reference Rot. PLoS ONE, 9(12): e115253. 
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253 ; 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253 

> On May 10, 2016, at 06:04, Sarven Capadisli  wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-05-10 06:51, Oscar Corcho wrote:
>> ## Paper Submission ##
>> 
>> Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers.
>> Submitted manuscripts will have to be in the range of 4000-5000 words and
>> edited with OpenOffice Writer or Microsoft Word, following the "Matters of
>> style" section in the author guidelines for D-Lib Magazine.
>> 
>> Papers submitted to the workshop will undergo a single-blind peer-review
>> process by Program Committee members. Accepted papers will be published as
>> a special issue of the D-Lib Magazine journal, in the first Quarter of
>> 2017. To be published on the proceedings, accepted contributions should be
>> revised according to the reviews and consider the feedback from the
>> workshop. Moreover, at least one author is required to register and
>> present the paper at the workshop.
> 
> Why is this workshop encouraging "reproducible" "open science" via paper and 
> desktop/print centric tools and formats?
> 
> Is the intention to "reproduce" still based on classical methods? For 
> example, how do you propose that the accepted works of this workshop are 
> reproduced?
> 
> What do you think about taking the initiative towards this "paradigm shift":
> 
> http://csarven.ca/linked-research-scholarly-communication
> 
> If that is of interest, what do you think it would require for this workshop 
> to embrace that?
> 
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
> 

Re: CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

[Oscar Corcho]

Dear Sarven,

I was missing so much your reply e-mails to the lists ;-) Thanks for your
contribution, which I was expecting.

Indeed, any type of contribution will more than appreciated, especially
since you probably have very interesting things to say wrt reproducibility
and open science, so I am really looking forward to your contribution to
the workshop. We do not mind about the format that you use as much as
about having interesting contributions that can foster discussion during
the workshop and have an impact in the community.

Please, also consider that not all publications need to be ³reproducible²
(even in this type of workshop), since not all of them talk about
experiments (there are many categories of papers that we scientists
produce and do not fall into that category, and are still very valid
pieces of research), and that there are many forms of reproducibility that
go beyond writing papers in HTML and annotating them with RDF (which I do
myself in many occasions without necessarily sending those URIs to every
mailing list recipient). There are many people who are working towards
facilitating reproducibility of experiments that may also see that the
approach that you propose is too narrow and does not always adhere to how
science is communicated in their domains.

That said, we would be really happy to have your team¹s contributions and
views in the workshop, since this type of discussion may be very valuable,
for the potential audience and for your team. In fact, it will be held in
a place geographically closed to the place where you work, where you can
travel by train.

Best regards,
  Oscar





-- 

Oscar Corcho
Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
Tel. (+34) 91 336 66 05
Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19






El 10/5/16 14:04, "Sarven Capadisli"  escribió:

>On 2016-05-10 06:51, Oscar Corcho wrote:
>> ## Paper Submission ##
>>
>> Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers.
>> Submitted manuscripts will have to be in the range of 4000-5000 words
>>and
>> edited with OpenOffice Writer or Microsoft Word, following the "Matters
>>of
>> style" section in the author guidelines for D-Lib Magazine.
>>
>> Papers submitted to the workshop will undergo a single-blind peer-review
>> process by Program Committee members. Accepted papers will be published
>>as
>> a special issue of the D-Lib Magazine journal, in the first Quarter of
>> 2017. To be published on the proceedings, accepted contributions should
>>be
>> revised according to the reviews and consider the feedback from the
>> workshop. Moreover, at least one author is required to register and
>> present the paper at the workshop.
>
>Why is this workshop encouraging "reproducible" "open science" via paper
>and desktop/print centric tools and formats?
>
>Is the intention to "reproduce" still based on classical methods? For
>example, how do you propose that the accepted works of this workshop are
>reproduced?
>
>What do you think about taking the initiative towards this "paradigm
>shift":
>
>http://csarven.ca/linked-research-scholarly-communication
>
>If that is of interest, what do you think it would require for this
>workshop to embrace that?
>
>-Sarven
>http://csarven.ca/#i

Re: CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 2016-05-10 06:51, Oscar Corcho wrote:

## Paper Submission ##

Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers.
Submitted manuscripts will have to be in the range of 4000-5000 words and
edited with OpenOffice Writer or Microsoft Word, following the "Matters of
style" section in the author guidelines for D-Lib Magazine.

Papers submitted to the workshop will undergo a single-blind peer-review
process by Program Committee members. Accepted papers will be published as
a special issue of the D-Lib Magazine journal, in the first Quarter of
2017. To be published on the proceedings, accepted contributions should be
revised according to the reviews and consider the feedback from the
workshop. Moreover, at least one author is required to register and
present the paper at the workshop.


Why is this workshop encouraging "reproducible" "open science" via paper 
and desktop/print centric tools and formats?


Is the intention to "reproduce" still based on classical methods? For 
example, how do you propose that the accepted works of this workshop are 
reproduced?


What do you think about taking the initiative towards this "paradigm shift":

http://csarven.ca/linked-research-scholarly-communication

If that is of interest, what do you think it would require for this 
workshop to embrace that?


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

[Oscar Corcho]

[*** Apologies for cross-posting ***]

**
First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

   Co-sponsored by Research Data Alliance Europe and OpenAIRE2020  

Hannover, Germany, September 9th, 2016
Web site: http://repscience2016.research-infrastructures.eu/
E-mail: repscience2...@isti.cnr.it

In conjunction with the International Conference on Theory and Practice of
Digital Libraries (TPDL 2016)

Proceedings published as Special Issue of the D-Lib Magazine Journal
(http://www.dlib.org)
***

## Workshop Objectives ##

This Workshop aims at becoming a forum to discuss ideas and advancements
towards the revision of current scientific communication practices in
order to support Open Science, introduce novel evaluation schemes, and
enable reproducibility. As such it candidates as an event fostering
collaboration between (i) Library and information scientists working on
the identification of new publication paradigms; (ii) ICT scientists
involved in the definition of new technical solutions to these issues;
(iii) scientists/researchers who actually conduct the research and demand
tools and practices for Open Science. The expected results are
advancements in the definition of the next generation scientific
communication ecosystem, where scientists can publish research results
(including the scientific article, the data, the methods, and any
³alternative² product that may be relevant to the conducted research) in
order to enable reproducibility (effective reuse and decrease of cost of
science) and rely on novel scientific reward practices.

## Workshop topics ##

The topics of this workshop are of interest to, but not limited to, the
following research avenues:
* Classification (models and ontologies), description (e.g. metadata),
identity management of products of science different from the traditional
article;
* Representing, exchanging, sharing, assessing (peer-reviewing),
depositing, preserving products different from the traditional article
* Publishing workflows for products different from the traditional
article, e.g. submission, review, scientific reward (e.g. software
publishing, research data publishing)
* Interlinking and contextualization of products: mining techniques, LOD,
data models, relationships (citation, versioning) between research
results, etc.
* Findability of products of science: indexing, searching, browsing
challenges;
* Controlled access to products of science (e.g. anonymization,
role-driven views)
* ³Packaging research results²: identification, representation,
description (metadata), deposition, preservation, evaluation, and
interoperability of ³research results packages² (e.g. Research Objects,
Elsevier¹s ³article of the future², executable papers, RMap)
* Systems, tools, paradigms, publishing workflows towards favouring
repetition, replication, reproduction, or re-use of science.

## Paper Submission ##

Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers.
Submitted manuscripts will have to be in the range of 4000-5000 words and
edited with OpenOffice Writer or Microsoft Word, following the "Matters of
style" section in the author guidelines for D-Lib Magazine.

Papers submitted to the workshop will undergo a single-blind peer-review
process by Program Committee members. Accepted papers will be published as
a special issue of the D-Lib Magazine journal, in the first Quarter of
2017. To be published on the proceedings, accepted contributions should be
revised according to the reviews and consider the feedback from the
workshop. Moreover, at least one author is required to register and
present the paper at the workshop.

## Submission System ##

Research papers must be submitted via the workshop submission system,
available at: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=repscience2016

## Important dates ##

Research paper submission: July 4th, 2016 - 23:59 CET
Notification of acceptance: August 1st, 2016
Revised paper re-submission: after workshop date, to be agreed with D-Lib
Magazine
Workshop day: September 9th, 2016

## Workshop Organisers ##

- Amir Aryani, Australian National Data Service, Australia
- Oscar Corcho, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
- Paolo Manghi, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR, ISTI), Italy
- Jochen Schirrwagen, Bielefeld University Library, Germany