[open-science] Working Group Profile in PLoS Biology

Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietchen at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 18 11:34:56 UTC 2011

I added a number of comments. Does anyone have a suggestion for an
image that could accompany the piece? It would be particularly great
if there were a visualization of some PP-compatible dataset, e.g. from

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi All
> Thanks to those who have taken a look, if anyone else who would like
> to comment and change things could do so by Sunday evening, I'll
> attempt to get the revised version in to PloS on Monday.
> Jenny
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Thaks Jenny - tremendous material to get started with.
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi All
>>> The OKF was approached recently by PLoS Biology to write a piece on the
>>> working group for their Community pages. I've drafted one, and it would be
>>> great if some of you could take a look and comment!
>>> http://okfnpad.org/sciencewg-PLoSBiology
>>> Please make edits, add comments throughout the text or at the end.
>>> Things to note:
>>> It is requested that we don't use this entirely as a self promotion
>>> activity and therefore focus mainly on a few things we do as opposed to
>>> listing them all,
>> Agreed. It may be worth pointing out that the OKF(-science) can act as a
>> tool to collect and refine opintions and protocols. Unlike real-life
>> meetings where the attendence is based on protoplasm, this approach allows
>> anyone to participate. However the "product" is a considerable refinement of
>> the ideas that went in. OKF takes its output quality seriously.
>>> so I've tried to find a balance whilst including enough activities to
>>> demonstrate the breadth of our scope. The focus is:
>>> The Open Definition
>>> The Panton Principles
>>> I have taken it as our position that we support the idea that scientific
>>> data should be open by default according to the Panton Principles (with all
>>> the usual caveats for privacy, special cases etc). I'm pretty sure that this
>>> reflects the views of most of the group, but I have mentioned that we are a
>>> diverse bunch :)
>>> I'd particularly like comments on:
>>> Have I made it clear enough that the piece is discussing data associated
>>> with published science (as per the PP)?
>>> Are there interesting cases/examples/analogies that you think would fit in
>>> the piece?
>>> Any general comments on content or style
>>> Please be frank - this is a great opportunity to get some exposure for the
>>> group (and make us citeable) so we want this to be as good as possible.
>> I agree we shouldn't advertise ourselves per se but it is worth making it
>> clear that OKF can have a role to play as a formal part in the development
>> of new protocols and approaches.
>>> Thanks very much for your help!
>>> Jenny
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

More information about the open-science mailing list