You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Benefits of open reviews in general: clarify work with original authors, broader community opinion, post-publication peer review of individual papers, prune topics that don’t draw interest
Short intro to deep review, goals, timeline, author solicitation, etc.
How we did it
Collaborative writing platform w/ tracking, drawbacks of traditional collaborative writing platforms in massively open setting
Review of each contribution commenting
Separate setup for discussion of papers
Figure: flowchart showing version i of document, commits, pull request, reviews, commits, …, merge, version i 1 of document (I think we'll need to illustrate the tracking and review system for readers who don't use version control systems)
Dealing with authorship
ICMJE criteria
Benefit: authorship and contributions precisely defined.
Challenge: how to make a traditional author list?
Equivalence classes as generalization of “co-first”
Manubot build system
Automating as much as possible, especially references
Publication system/journal of the future & how it relates
Living document, new authors after deep review version 1
Other areas of open science and innovative ideas, related GitHub-based projects (JOSS, ReScience, etc.)
Would a GitHub-based strategy be a barrier to entry for other groups that don’t already use git? Technical knowledge required to clone manubot-rootstock, set up continuous integration.
Conflict management, diversity, point to open source software strategies
Using these ideas for primary research (SciHub manuscript)