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