Comments on: A Simplified Open Publishing Manifesto

By: Yarko Tymciurak

Yarko Tymciurak — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:14:59 +0000

Note (in general): internet links & sites become obsolete.

Etherpad was acquired by Google, and then open-sourced. See: http://etherpad.com/ for links to the source repository, and other info.

By: Leo Lahti

Leo Lahti — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:09:01 +0000

While many researchers are already committed to these guidelines, an explicit manifesto will give added visibility for these objectives and helps to define the essential baseline. Support.

Claudia: the link http://etherpad.com/An-Open-Publishing-Manifesto is broken?

By: Pål M. Lykkja

Pål M. Lykkja — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:34:14 +0000

Ed Felten has suggested that all scientists start using the same word processors that the professional programmers are using. It has a very precise and sophisticated versoning system and is able to handle much information.
“Developing Texts Like We Develop Software”
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/developing-texts-we-develop-software

By: Jorge Cardoso

Jorge Cardoso — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:28:59 +0000

I do 1, 3 and 4 (and will probably start doing 2 also).

For those who use BibTeX, there a great tool by Martin Monperrus called bibtexbrowser to generate a list of publications automatically for your website that takes care of 1, 3 (sort of) and 4 (the new version has rss feeds)…

I blogged about it here: http://jorgecardoso.eu/blog/index.php?/archives/154-Bibtexbrowser.html
The tool can be found here: http://www.monperrus.net/martin/bibtexbrowser/

By: Frédéric Morain-Nicolier

Frédéric Morain-Nicolier — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:13:02 +0000

Thanks for this very good idea. I agree with Jeremy Anglim to add “code and data share” to the list : we need to let others to reproduce our results, easily.

By: Weiwei

Weiwei — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:53:41 +0000

Totally!

Actually, it is very nice to see that nowadays in machine learning, most of the decent researchers actually do all these.

By: Claudia Koltzenburg

Claudia Koltzenburg — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:46:27 +0000

thanks, Daniel,

for a collaborative writing project on this issue see here:
http://etherpad.com/An-Open-Publishing-Manifesto
feel free to join in everyone

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:15:15 +0000

I love it! I’ll make sure to add explicit (and simple) support for this idea.

Cheers,

christopher

By: Jeromy Anglim

Jeromy Anglim — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:45:47 +0000

I would add to the above aims that publication impact can be increased by sharing other resources related to a publication.

While acknowledging real limitations related to time, copyright, privacy, and other issues, publication impact can be increased by sharing following materials in an accessible online form:
1) Raw data and metadata used in the publication.
2) Digital materials related to the publications (e.g., survey materials; tests; software created; etc.)
3) Code used to generate results (e.g., tables and figures).

Additional Thoughts
My own post on the topic:
http://jeromyanglim.blogspot.com/2009/09/linking-text-results-and-analyses.html

A discussion on Andrew Gelman’s blog:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/09/we_received_onl.html

By: D. Eppstein

D. Eppstein — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:16:37 +0000

Yes.

I generally make sure to upload to arXiv prior to sending in the copyright form, and (when I remember this part) to notify the conference or journal publisher of the arXiv version on the form. That way they can plausibly reject my paper for that reason (though they never do) but they have no excuse for asking me to take down the arXiv version later. (Not that takedowns from arXiv are really possible…)

Of course, when I have co-authors handling the details, they may not handle them the same way (I am still bugging my coauthors to put up a public preprint version of one of my papers a month or two after its acceptance).

Also, I’m pretty sure ACM conferences specifically allow their papers to be put up in arXiv (or as they call it the “ACM Computing Research Repository”) but I don’t know about IEEE.

By: Daniel Lemire

Daniel Lemire — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:04:54 +0000

@Gasarch I am not aware of any case where ACM or IEEE have asked an author to take something off arXiv.

Beside, we are ACM and IEEE. It is not like they could afford to upset all of us.

By: William Gasarch

William Gasarch — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:54:15 +0000

Have organizations like IEEE or ACM or Elsevier or others actually told authors to take things off of arXiv? I ask this nonrhetoically.

By: Daniel Lemire

Daniel Lemire — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:33:17 +0000

@herraiz No, it is not necessary to post to arXiv in what I wrote above.

By: Misha Lemeshko

Misha Lemeshko — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:32:12 +0000

2 herraiz:

When you transfer the copyright you usually cannot post the _printed_ version of the article (as it will appear in journal). But, normally you can submit a preprint to the arXive, just your version, as it was submitted to the journal.

As for the Google Scholar – people are used to check the arXive updates, so your paper will be much more visible there.

By: herraiz

herraiz — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:09:16 +0000

And what about the copyright agreements that have been signed? For big organizations like IEEE or ACM, authors have to transfer their copyright to the organization, that forbids posting in sites like Arxiv. It is allowed to post the papers in your own website though.

Is it really necessary to post to Arxiv, breaking the agreements, when there are tools like Google Scholar available? For instance, all the papers that are in my web can be easily found in Google Scholar. And I am not breaking any agreement that I previously signed.