While preprints will be able to have tags assocaited with them (like keywords), we also want some toplevel categories that people can browse generic viagra by. Our initial ‘category’ list is as follows:
This would be for something like a fine-grained page, perhaps with some of those categories nested within bigger toplevel categories. Picture this like the breakup plos one does. We’d initially populate a list, but then after 2 months of usage, or so, see what tags had come up as new ‘categories’ through sheer commonness of usage.
For initial display on the front page, however, we wanted an even coarser grained list of Toplevel Topics. Here’s the list we ended up with. Picture a front page with 2-3 articles listed from each topic – say, the latest submitted, or hottest, or highest rated in the last week.
This seems sufficient as toplevel topics…but, thoughts?
Frozen Feature Set for The OpenPub Project: Where Science Preprints are On Tap
– Paper uploading
– Minimal Reputation
– Minimal Discovery, Tagging, & Search
– Stable Identifiers
– User Pages
– Logo – Amber&Mark
Build Timeline (roughly that will change)
Now – Paper uploading and commenting
March – Reviewing
April – Versioning and Identifiers
May – Tagging
June – Discovery/Search/Tagging
July – User Pages & Notifications
August – Reputation
September – DOI
What do we need on the front page?
Lists of papers
Account features in a top bar
New &Interesting/Hot(activity)/Top Rated
Point of the front page is to suck someone in…
Top level categories with the latest 3 in each category…
– can click to resort to hot and highest rated this week
Subheadings on Front Page
Tags – 10 top tags in each toplevel category
Submit images that relate to their work? Cycle fun image randomly? Get random images…and papers on the side
What should a score be: words or numbers?
Should they relate to the current journal paragidm?
Technicalities v. importance – facet out the score?
– too complicated!
Do we let this emerge?
What kind of ratings would people like – later in the survey?
Discussion board topic on ratings
Major science concerns
Minor science concerns
Science is good, but poorly written
Science is good, text needs minor cleanup
Ready for publication
Outstanding paper in the field
is seriously flawed – 1
has some technical issues – 2
is useful – 3
is a significant contribution – 4
is an outstanding contribution to the field -5
We all agree on Cameron’s scale. The slightly more vague scale actually has some very large advantages.
How does this contribute to Karma?
Reviews do not reduce Karma
But a score of 1 does not add to Karma
Nonlinear function of scores
We need to come up with a scoring formula for papers!
This is a small company in Corvallis…. with a history of working well with academic orgs.
They have an automated metadata service that might create some visible value and coolness to the UI.
We might be able to get this for free for the experiment.
check it out: