Some notes to the connection between reproducibility, academic publishing and… whatever.
In recent years, a highly interesting pattern has emerged: Computer scientists release new research findings on arXiv and just days later, developers release an open-source implementation on GitHub. This pattern is immensely powerful.…]
GitXiv is a space to share links to open computer science projects. Countless Github and arXiv links are floating around the web. It’s hard to keep track of these gems. GitXiv attempts to solve this problem by offering a collaboratively curated feed of projects. Each project is conveniently presented as arXiv + Github + Links + Discussion. Members can submit their findings and let the community rank and discuss it. A regular newsletter makes it easy to stay up-to-date on recent advancements. It’s free and open.
In terms of things that I will actually use, this source-code requirement idea is good.
Arxiv Sanity Preserver
Built by @karpathy to accelerate research. Serving last 26179 papers from cs.[CV|CL|LG|AI|NE]/stat.ML
includes twitter-hype sorting and other such flawed but important baby steps towards web2.0 style peer-review.
Keep track of arXiv papers and the tweet mini-commentaries that your friends are discussing on Twitter.
Because somehow some researchers have time for twitter and the opinions of such multitasking prodigies are probably worthy of note. I, however, will never contribute to such discourses. Anyway, great hack.
oadoi seems to be a legal index of non-paywalled preprints
Zenodo “is an open dependable home for the long-tail of science, enabling researchers to share and preserve any research outputs in any size, any format and from any science.”
- Research. Shared. — all research outputs from across all fields of science are welcome!
- Citeable. Discoverable. — uploads gets a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to make them easily and uniquely citeable…
- Flexible licensing — because not everything is under Creative Commons.
- Safe — your research output is stored safely for the future in same cloud infrastructure as research data from CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.
A major win is the easy DOI-linking of data and code for reproducible research. (for free)
Open Conference Systems (OCS) “is a free Web publishing tool that will create a complete Web presence for your scholarly conference. OCS will allow you to:
- create a conference Web site
- compose and send a call for papers
- electronically accept paper and abstract submissions
- allow paper submitters to edit their work
- post conference proceedings and papers in a searchable format
- post, if you wish, the original data sets
- register participants
- integrate post-conference online discussions
is an open access online scholarly publishing platform that employs open post-publication peer review. You guessed it! We think transparency from start to finish is critical in scientific communication. […]
Publish your research, class essays, peer reviews, grants, letters, how-to articles, conference summaries, conference talks, blogs - whatever format you choose.
Invite researchers and colleagues to review your work using The Winnower. The review period can be as long or as short as you need it to be.
Revise your work based on the reviews you receive. You can make as many or as little changes as necessary before archiving.
Once you are satisfied with your paper you can assign a digital object identifier (DOI). Metrics including Altmetrics, views, and reviews, will track the impact of your work.
we’d been talking about communities, cultures, economics, “public-making” but it was the word ‘club’ and its associated concepts, both pejorative and positive that crystalised everything. We were talking about the clubbishness of making knowledge – the term “Knowledge Clubs” emerged quickly – but also the benefits that such a club might gain in choosing to invest in wider sharing.
- Afonso, A. (2013, December 11) How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang. Impact of Social Sciences.
- Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013) The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923. DOI.
- Bogich, T. L., Balleseteros, S., Berjon, R., Callahan, C., & Chen, L. (n.d.) On the marginal cost of scholarly communication.
- Clarke, M. (n.d.) The Changing Nature of Scale in STM and Scholarly Publishing. The Scholarly Kitchen.
- Falagas, M. E., Zarkali, A., Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Bardakas, V., & Mavros, M. N.(2013) The Impact of Article Length on the Number of Future Citations: A Bibliometric Analysis of General Medicine Journals. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e49476. DOI.
- Kitchen, S. (n.d.) Revisiting: The Price of Posting — PubMed Central Spends Most of Its Budget Handling Author Manuscripts. The Scholarly Kitchen.
- Potts, J., Hartley, J., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C., & Rennie, E. (2016) A Journal is a Club: A New Economic Model for Scholarly Publishing (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2763975). . Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network
- Schimmer, Ralf, Geschuhn, Kai Karin, & Vogler, Andreas. (2015) Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. DOI.
- Van Noorden, R. (2013) Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426–429. DOI.