Dynamic Publication Formats and Collaborative Authoring

Heller, Lambert; Bartling, Sönke

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_13

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Collaborative authoring tools also allow a larger number of authors to work in parallel on publications with new and often dynamic publication formats. Dynamic publications do not have a static version but are fluent in the sense that authors can change content at any time at different levels (e. g. words, sentences, paragraphs) [9]. Booksprints is a popular platform to experiment with dynamic publications as well as collaborative authoring.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Science 2.0 will impact on scientific libraries

Tochtermann

2014

It - Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the event of Social Media, well established principles of scholarly communication have changed dramatically. For centuries libraries served as single point of access to scientific literature. Social Media however brings up new publication forms, e. g. scientific wikis, new communication channels, e. g. micro-blogs, or community driven research and publication envirnoments, e. g. Mendeley or ResearchGate. Based upon our own experiences within ZBW -Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, we present how research and development in computer science will help scientific libraries to manage the necessary change within the next decade.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Science 2.0 will impact on scientific libraries

Tochtermann

2014

It - Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is essential that scholars understand how to apply these successful 4 collaborative practices from FOSS development, especially now that much scholarly research is becoming increasingly reliant on computation. This has the potential to improve the efficiency, diversity, productivity, and reliability of research processes, decoupled from any formalised journal-bound peer review system (Heller, The, and Bartling 2014;Frassl et al 2018;Tennant, Bielczyk, et al 2019) Here, however, it is important to clarify some important differences between participating in FOSS and Open Scholarship activities. These differences lie in the process more than the product.…”

Section: Much Of This Sharing and Collaborative Foss Culture Was Drivmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…). Recently, the concept of a 'Massively Open Online Paper', or MOOP, was proposed to attempt to reflect a more FOSS-style workflow within scholarly manuscript writing(Tennant, Bielczyk, et al 2019), presenting new collaborative opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and interactive knowledge generation in an authoring environment(Heller, The, and Bartling 2014). Such exceptions aside, Open Scholarship in its current form is more similar to proprietary software companies who decide to render their products Open Source while keeping the participation process exclusive.For Open Scholarship it seems that intrinsic motivations might play a stronger role than extrinsic ones when it comes to participation within some communities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

Agrawal¹,

Baždarić²,

Brassard³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no clear-cut boundary between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship, and the histories, practices, and fundamental principles between the two remain complex. In this study, we critically appraise the intersections and differences between the two movements. Based on our thematic comparison here, we conclude several key things. First, there is substantial scope for new communities of practice to form within scholarly communities that place sharing and collaboration/open participation at their focus. Second, Both the principles and practices of FOSS can be more deeply ingrained within scholarship, asserting a balance between pragmatism and social ideology. Third, at the present, Open Scholarship risks being subverted and compromised by commercial players. Fourth, the shift and acceleration towards a system of Open Scholarship will be greatly enhanced by a concurrent shift in recognising a broader range of practices and outputs beyond traditional peer review and research articles. In order to achieve this, we propose the formulation of a new type of institutional mandate. We believe that there is substantial need for research funders to invest in sustainable open scholarly infrastructure, and the communities that support them, to avoid the capture and enclosure of key research services that would prevent optimal researcher behaviours. Such a shift could ultimately lead to a healthier scientific culture, and a system where competition is replaced by collaboration, resources (including time and people) are shared and acknowledged more efficiently, and the research becomes inherently more rigorous, verified, and reproducible.

show abstract

“…Stack Exchange works by having users publish a specific problem or question, and then others contribute to a discussion on that issue. This format is considered to be a form of dynamic publishing by some ( Heller et al , 2014). The appeal of Stack Exchange is that threaded discussions are often brief, concise, and geared towards solutions, all in a typical Web forum format.…”

Section: Potential Future Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.

show abstract

Dynamic Publication Formats and Collaborative Authoring

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

How Science 2.0 will impact on scientific libraries

How Science 2.0 will impact on scientific libraries

A tale of two 'opens': intersections between Free and Open Source Software and Open Scholarship

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About