Comments on: Micropublication and open source research

By: How would you fund research? – An Open Science perspective « The #SciFund Challenge

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:05:35 +0000

[...] research cycle is key, albeit the publishing step will be steadily decomposed on the way towards micro- and nanopublications (thereby making the least publishable unit obsolete). Perpetual public peer [...]

By: How would you fund research – an Open Science perspective | Science 3.0

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:10:35 +0000

By: Taking scientific publishing to the next level

Taking scientific publishing to the next level — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:04:46 +0000

[...] by an email exchange with Daniel Gayo Avello.Update: Michael Nielsen sent me a point to his essay Micropublication and open source research Comments (22)22 Comments »Daniel,insteresting idea. It is becoming a recurrent subject [...]

By: Huzaifa Zoomkawala

Huzaifa Zoomkawala — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 04:35:45 +0000

In addition to the equation simplifier you mention, two more AI based helpers come to mind:
- Math checker (verify if the the math, esp. the statistics is sound; this could go some way in addressing the shoddy statistics problem addressed by John Ioannidis covered in the Atlantic post, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science,” http://bit.ly/bU6o49).
- Reference checker: Show possible citations that author might have missed out by examining the text.

Also, I feel the staged adoption approach you mention in the end is logical but too safe. One or more bolder leaps have to be taken (maybe Tahrir has whet the appetite for disruptive changes). Perhaps these leaps have already been taken by Google, Wikipedia et. al. and just need to be identified and integrated.

By: What would science look like if it were invented today – part II: knowledge structuring | fundscience.org

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:35 +0000

[...] information can be inserted at any time later, independent of press runs — some call this micropublication. For example, part I of this post has already been “published” on the blog, but [...]

By: Konrad’s considerations » Blog Archive » Micropublications

Konrad’s considerations » Blog Archive » Micropublications — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:13:36 +0000

[...] who is writing a book about the future of science posted a week ago an excerpt with a scenario of micropublications. This is nothing else than Wiki-Science as is e.g. described by Kevin Kelly. But the expression [...]

By: Michael Nielsen » Rough notes on the Budapest Open Access Initiative

Michael Nielsen » Rough notes on the Budapest Open Access Initiative — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:39 +0000

[...] people to tease apart who contributed what. If such permissive licensing were allowed – i.e., open source research – then we’d get a good deal more involuntary collaboration. In my opinion, the history of [...]

By: Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:10:38 +0000

Fixed, thanks!

By: Chris W.

Chris W. — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:04:35 +0000

The tilde in the URL linking to Zeilberger's essay got changed to a space somehow. The correction: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion39.html

By: Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:32:37 +0000

Hi Jon,

This kind of zooming seems very attractive. Wikipedia does something related already, with large topics often having a single main page, and many subpages, with the subpages typically being summarized on the main page.

I suspect that having a very large number of levels may be unattractive to authors – it would be a lot of effort to prepare (although open sourcing the license may help with this). But having two or three levels of detail may be quite an attractive proposition to authors. At some level, many already try to write this way, both providing an outline of their argument, and providing the details in separate sections (or appendices). Of course, at present publishing tools aren’t very well adapted to presenting multiple levels, and so you lose a lot of the impact.