Related broader efforts

During the week we made plenty of reference to other things out there, but, as we start researching a bit more precisely how we want to implement this effort, it would be nice to hear some more thoughts on exactly how this fits in with other efforts out there.

A few things to focus attention on (but please mention others as well):

PeerJ is interesting but obviously still a giant unknown, which we spent plenty of time speculating about.

figshare has a lot of what we talked about in spirit: a place to publish and cite all kinds of objects. Although textual objects can be put there, the emphasis there is on visual objects, so it doesn’t match quite as well with our conversational focus. But it seems to me whatever we build should include linking to figshare in a nice, integrated way.

PaperCritic by Mendeley is at the other end of the spectrum, totally focused on peer review of actual papers. It doesn’t serve as a place to actually post papers, however. Its usefulness seems intimately tied to how Mendeley-ized your life is, and I think there are both benefits and obvious drawbacks to this. And certainly it’s as unpervasive in the culture as anything else.

Also, Lonnie’s question of why exactly did Nature Precedings fail seems to me very important. Without actually knowing anything, I suspect it’s the lack of a focused community.

Ginsparg on peer review

“If we were to start from scratch today to design a quality-controlled archive and distribution system for scientific and technical information, it could take a very different form from what has evolved in the past decade from pre-existing print infrastructure. Recent technological advances could provide not only more efficient means of accessing and navigating the information, but also more cost-effective means of authentication and quality control. I discuss relevant experiences of the past decade from open electronic distribution of research materials in physics and related disciplines, and describe their implications for proposals to improve the implementation of peer review. ”

http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/blurb/pg02pr.html#_jmp0_

Products & Timelines

Here are the products that we will be creating with a rough timeline and who is taking the lead:

  • IEE Special Issue: Ongoing Section of the Future of EEB publication
  •     – Lonnie & Chris take the lead
        – Stefano has lead article, we all contribute pieces from the meeting
        – Papers solicited soon for October submission?

  • Survey of gaps in eeb publishing with a focus on readiness for the next thing and reputation metrics
  •     – Carol & Amber taking the lead
        – Chris filing IRB
        – Launched in October
        – Carol has army ready to process the data

  • Meeting Poster at ESPI
  •     – Amber and Bruce taking the lead
        – $5K award possible
        – July 20th

  • eeBeta/ecoHere/needsAName: commentpress style preprint/workingpaper/microarticle platform with a stackoverflow reputation system
  •     – Archive of Working Scholarly Products
        – Ed and Cameron taking the lead with Jarrett & Mark in the loop
        – August 25-26 PLoS Hackathon with either Ed or someone like Brian Glanz or Steve
        – Goal is to have a working beta in testing before 2nd NCEAS meeting in January, launch afterwards