Dear Gabriele, - Thank you for the clarification. I forgot the order of magnitude available from http://data.uis.unesco.org/# I apologize for this lack of perspective of mine. A quote of UNESCO's source would be a minimum requirement for a resource dedicated toward researchers I suppose. - Precision on the business model (free basic, fee on "premium" etc.) could be useful, (comparison to alternatives such as COS <https://cos.io/> too. But there's still a question : - How does it relate to Wikimedia ? *Does QEIOS intend to disseminate under CC-BY-SA all content produced / stored with its service ?* And more specifically and "wikimedianly"
*Would applying semantic content (with semantic media wiki for instance) to wikijournals (wikiversity), not be a wider strategy ?* *BR* *Rudy* *CordialementRudy Patard <[email protected]>* *{{u|RP87 <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* Coopérateur Optéos, commoner, Développeur de techniques intermédiaires libres & Chercheur in-terre-dépendant [hal <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] [youtube <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfpCq9sbJZ9_cgH6NncD8Kg>] On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 19:37, Gabriele - Qeios <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Rudy, dear all, > > thank you for your email. > > - Qeios’ text editor is a visual editor specifically designed for > researchers. > > - “9M active researchers around the world”, “2.8M articles published per > year” and “1.5T global R&D expenditure per year” [1.5 trillion PPP > (purchasing power parity) dollars] are UNESCO figures about the scientific > community, not Qeios’ numbers. We have just launched Qeios Beta and started > inviting researchers. Qeios’ community counts now 120 researchers. We > didn’t think those figures could be confusing. Thank you for the feedback. > > - So far, Qeios have been funded by co-founders’ personal savings + money > from a couple of knowledge-enthusiasts. To make it self-sustainable, stable > and allow for improvements, we are planning to apply a monthly fee of $10 > to access some services such as Qeios’ text editor and storage, depending > on their usage. There won’t be advertisements, APCs or any other hidden > expenses. > > We are just offering a possible solution and trying to make research > better. > > Feedback of any type is much appreciated. > > Many thanks and all the best, > > Gabriele > > — > Gabriele Marinello > Co-founder, Qeios Ltd > > 34, Old Barrack Yard, SW1X 7NP, London, UK > UK +44 (0) 7426 853828 > IT +39 380 8912791 > [email protected] > www.qeios.com > > On Wed, Nov 14th, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Rudy Patard <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear Gabriele, dear all, >> >> So you're ontologists. I suppose (hope) you enable researchers to produce >> their articles as semantic content. But I'm curious on how you enable >> fuzziness in knowledge production. >> Would end point querying be available ? >> >> I saw you put a F1000 reference in you email. I recall having worked on >> that during my thesis. >> (french) "*F1000Research* publie sous licence CC-BY et *requière* des >> *APC* de *1000 USD HT* pour des articles *entre 2500 et 8000 mots*. 1000 >> USD de plus sont exigés au delà de cette limite et il faut les contacter au >> delà de 15000 mots." (my thesis, git repos linked in signature) >> Would you grant us the pleasure of showing us the 'business model' of >> QEIOS ? I'd like to understand how this young firm >> <https://opengovuk.com/company/10826076> of yours as reached the "9M >> active researchers", "2.8M articles" and "1.5T *expenditure*" (and just >> for the record, 1.5T, a trillion and a half of what ? USD, £ ?) >> *M a mega, T a trillion, so should we guess for a F1000Research - like >> business model, with Author Publication Charges (APC) about around >> 500(monetary unit) / article ?* >> I let wikimedians do the math of *their* number of articles divided by >> their total charges (understanding the limits in comparing 1st source and >> encyclopedia production) to 'ponder' if F1000 and/or QEIOS rank as >> "predatory publication" according to "raw cost" of sustaining a massive >> publication structure. One should also take into account that many >> universities grant "server" space for their 'workers' as well as archives >> (for green OA as for grey production)... >> You claim on your site that "Qeios >> <https://www.qeios.com/read/definition/307> can be read 100% free by >> anyone. There are no economic and technological barriers between knowledge >> and people with Internet access.", but that does not tell us how it is >> funded and about barriers in producing knowledge (not only reading others). >> >> I still do not understand why researchers don't switch to wikimedian-like >> productions. Or more precisely, I understand and strongly disagree on >> *why* they continue feeding such a system of theirs. At least, I'd >> expect wide margins of our social group to "fork" >> production-review-dissemination systems (poorly funded universities or >> disciplines, strongly fundamentals 'math'-geeks, computer scientists >> working opensource-style etc.). I came to the conclusion (while reading >> Bourdieu) that "academia" knows its (social) reproduction patterns and >> quietly approve of it, and maintain it. I'm still waiting for the critical >> mass. >> >> In case the list is interested, I developed a protocol in my final thesis >> chapter based on wikimedian space: >> * descriptions in English (chinese and french) versions under common >> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:JSL?uselang=fr> >> * french project under wikiversité Journal Scientifique Libre >> <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre> >> >> BR >> Rudy, RP87 >> >> >> *CordialementRudy Patard <[email protected]>* >> >> *{{u|RP87 <https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Utilisateur:RP87>}}* >> >> Coopérateur Optéos, commoner, >> Développeur de techniques intermédiaires libres >> & Chercheur in-terre-dépendant [hal >> <https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/rudy-patard>] [youtube >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfpCq9sbJZ9_cgH6NncD8Kg>] >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 15:23, Gabriele - Qeios <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear Wikimedia OA list members, >> >> I’m Gabriele Marinello, co-founder along with Giorgio Bedogni and Alberto >> Bedogni of Qeios (https://www.qeios.com/about >> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8U97lHoRagBIggCmsSjZEAwx4HHWbZTvwXymqpgGGc-BqZHsM9Cw6pX_f7-G2NaKJiwOSNYJMJieMgg79EO-9eHoi2LjDZUnEmJG_-QY2tea2Q1ZiWJ097TzVRwomE60b5gKt1Da49KsgMp4htOmU1zKOAM1ZotelZk=>). >> The reason I’m writing - to share with you what Qeios is about. Hopefully, >> you’ll find this interesting. It goes without saying, it’s about Open >> Science. >> >> We are striving hard to finally give researchers power over the entire >> knowledge life-cycle: production, quality check and sharing. The overall >> result is not just immensely positive for all the stakeholders in the >> process, but also, and most of all, for the output - knowledge. Free, >> better and more comparable/reproducible knowledge. >> >> In short. >> >> We do are applying the power of the community review, as many now do >> (fortunately), but to be faaaar more effective, we are doing this at 2 >> different levels: the ingredients and the cake! The ingredients being the >> definitions of which an article, the cake, is made of. We firstly want the >> community to finally reach a consensus on what the best definitions to be >> used are when creating knowledge (a real “Definictionary” for researchers, >> so that they can all speak the same language!), and then let the same >> community openly review the output in terms of articles. >> >> Just to make you a quick example of an “ingredient”: think about the >> definition of “Quality of Life” (QoL), essential metric when evaluating >> almost any medical treatment (what is medicine fighting for?); there are >> thousands of different definitions of QoL… and anyone is using the one >> which is best suited to his/her p-value… in short, anyone is speaking the >> language which can benefit most to him/her. >> >> And a research article is made of hundreds of definitions… and for each >> there are dozens of variants... we can now easily understand how >> incomparable can be 2 articles that are trying to find an answer to the >> same question (e.g. what is the best treatment for Depression?), each being >> made of its unique mix of definitions... and it is precisely here that the >> indecision and inconclusiveness of the research arise: we are not able, in >> almost all cases, to say "treatment A is better than treatment B" simply >> because the 2 papers, the 2 studies, are not comparable! >> >> Articles and definitions are composed and published directly on the >> platform (and Qeios editor is satisfying like never before ; )). This is >> the most suitable way to take advantage of the new object “definition” in >> producing the best possible knowledge: the rating system built on >> definitions allows in fact researchers the assisted-choice of the best >> ingredients to use when composing their articles... and if now anyone can >> easily recognise the best definitions, articles will be automatically >> composed more homogeneously, which means more comparable/reproducible >> research. >> >> Researchers have the power, let’s use that power! >> >> For those who are not familiar with the open post-publication peer review >> (i.e. community review), I wouldn’t be able to give a better insight into >> its value than Andrew Gelman here: >> https://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/01/peer-review-make-no-damn-sense/ >> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8U97lHoRagBIggCmsSjZEAwx4HHWbZTvwXymqpgGGc-BqZHsM9Cw6pX_f7-G2NaKJiwOSNYJMJieMgg79EO-9eHoi2LjDZUnEmJG_-QY2tea2Q1ZiWJ04a3gCQg6lkSrLJoL9BzU7JLrxDDj0lsb3hI1lMLX87iV5mMPCPJs5O7U7LgqImkQC8PJ1E-7ae1W5gccFcChXBeG0uLYNnC53tfw>. >> To better understand what the guiding principles of the Qeios philosophy >> are, I would also suggest these articles by Jon Tennant et al. and Jason >> Priem: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3 >> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8U97lHoRagBIggCmsSjZEAwx4HHWbZTvwXymqpgGGc-BqZHsM9Cw6pX_f7-G2NaKJiwOSNYJMJieMgg79EO-9eHoi2LjDZUnEmJG_-QY2tea2Q1ZiWJ05vK0S10_lFKiIIkGslHY7tD2lXOhlAhFlFErjZ-Dp_-Ju3BKYRkNctLlE8XibKV5J5J0dg==> >> ; https://www.nature.com/articles/495437a >> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8U97lHoRagBIggCmsSjZEAwx4HHWbZTvwXymqpgGGc-BqZHsM9Cw6pX_f7-G2NaKJiwOSNYJMJieMgg79EO-9eHoi2LjDZUnEmJG_-QY2tea2Q1ZiWJ097TzVQMshVS1JNUGtRKU4M-tnWK5mBgGxRsxj4GF92y29BjMoS5dTC5loTS0K9E=> >> . >> >> In the words of Einstein: "Only the individual can think, and thereby >> create new values for society — nay, even set up new moral standards to >> which the life of the community conforms. Without creative, independently >> thinking and judging personalities the upward development of society is as >> unthinkable as the development of the individual personality without the >> nourishing soil of the community.” We defend the creativeness of the >> individual in the same way as we support the value that only the community >> can add. >> >> If you are curious, you can find a video and more information here: >> https://www.qeios.com/about >> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8U97lHoRagBIggCmsSjZEAwx4HHWbZTvwXymqpgGGc-BqZHsM9Cw6pX_f7-G2NaKJiwOSNYJMJieMgg79EO-9eHoi2LjDZUnEmJG_-QY2tea2Q1ZiWJ097TzVRwomE60b5gKt1Da49KsgMp4htOmU1zKOAM1ZotelZk=> >> >> If then you are interested, you can sign up using an invitation link, >> here is Giorgio’s: >> https://www.qeios.com/invitation-to-join/researcher/314 >> <https://share.polymail.io/v1/z/b/NWJlYzJmZTk1YjYz/Q858w9a4n1bhbpm-VBUtEqcG8U97lHoRagBIggCmsSjZEAwx4HHWbZTvwXymqpgGGc-BqZHsM9Cw6pX_f7-G2NaKJiwOSNYJMJieMgg79EO-9eHoi2LjDZUnEmJG_-QY2tea2Q1ZiWJ097TzVRwomE60b5gKt1DS78uwgGChlARH3FZrltjd_6SX5mMKBPZpquvQ9fI0fTKHbrpb0sJWgHlhb5mIzgO3> >> >> If you have any questions/doubts or feedback, feel free to drop me an >> email at [email protected] or call me at +39 380 8912791. >> >> Wishing you all a wonderful week, >> >> Gabriele >> >> — >> Gabriele Marinello >> Co-founder, Qeios Ltd >> >> 34, Old Barrack Yard, SW1X 7NP, London, UK >> UK +44 (0) 7426 853828 >> IT +39 380 8912791 >> [email protected] >> www.qeios.com >> >> >
_______________________________________________ OpenAccess mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
