librears / science-web-journal Goto Github PK

Desktop

• JSON-LD as file format (Jupyter notebook's file format is JSON)
• Webbrowser implementation or desktop client. GUI and terminal (flexibility is important)
• Usage of the GNU Name System and publication of files over GNUnet

Features:

• Interactive computing and dynamic lab book with code like jupyter notebook and binder
• Interactive wiki with sourcecode (how was the plotting done, e.g. python and pandas) and database
• Text writing similar to Jupyter Notebook with Markdown but with additional semantic syntax like in Semantic MediaWiki. Editing with freedom of software (GUI, Vim, Eclipse, LibreOffice etc.).
• Cite and maintain personal library like with Zotero
• Version control (git)
• Timestamps etc. for data
• A minimal researcher profile with contributions like on GitHub; no new fazebook! (perhaps secushare)
• Calendar

App

• For public-key exchange (QR-Code)
• Lab management (inventory)?
• Documentation (photos)
• Quick access to wiki and data
• (Maybe voice input of some experiment data)

• Linked data for scientists with python
• Micropublications?
• Semantic publishing
• Python XML

The Editors of nowadays journals represent their audience and make sure only results with significant improvements are published.

The Science-web-journal doesn't want to replace journalism but implements an efficient way for collaboration and data-sharing. Failures as well as small improvements shall be considered and the data management with semantic web technologies prevents reinventing the wheel over and over again.

This issue addresses the consideration of journalism.

There are at least two reasons for safety: Competition and censorship. The Science-web-journal promotes open data, but private data storage and private search are essential to allow them.

The private data storage is addressed with the implemented level of access.

Secure and private search should be possible by publishing over GNUnet.

Just a list of software to steal ideas from:

• Overleaf
• Semantic MediaWiki
• DocOnce
• MyTardis
• eLabFTW
• sciNote
• Gobby
• reproducible-academic-publications

There should be more differentiation than just a name on a paper (no more phantom-papers).

Hands-on points:

• Collecting data (signature, timestamp)
• Evaluation of data (signature)
• Writing (Paper, Thesis, wikibooks) (signature, version control)
• Supervising in lab (only points for educational work, e.g. looking for undergraduaded) (handshake of two signatures, timestamp)

Network points

• Managment/supervision (Groupleader, Prof.) (handshake with several signatures, key from university/institution)
• Collaborating (organized exchanged scientists, grants, networking) (handshakes)
• Peer-review (signature)

To achieve high-quality science there is no need of paid journals. Quality standards for data collection and data publishing force scientists to work in a consistent manner. With a systematical and transparent approach to draw conclusions from these data, false and unprofessional publications can be filtered out. Additionally the personal and institutional reputation is linked to a publication and quality of data, encouraging researchers to double check their results.

Possibilities to validate conclusions and to establish trust include:

• A rating system
• Keys from universities and institutes as quality seals
• Peer review
• Possibility to correct publications (maybe after a time interval)
• Number of citations (after a while)
• Transparent linked data (See #5)
• ...

Nevertheless there might be a place for payed Editors (See #3)