[open-science] Making science more accountable and efficient

[koltzenburg at w4w.net]

Hi Soeren,

great!

> Has someone of you seen something like this already?

no, sorry

> If not do you think 
the creation of such a manifesto is useful and would you be interested 
to work with me on that?

yes,
cheers,
Claudia

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 20:56:42 +0100, Sören Auer wrote
> Hi all, 
> 
> I just subscribed to the list, so please forgive me if you discussed a 
> similar topic already earlier. 
> 
> I'm regularly doing reviews for journals and conferences in computer 
> science and I notice, that still many papers describe approaches and/or 
> systems, but the underlying software and data is not (publicly) 
> available. From my point of view this substantially hinders 
> reproducability, reusability, and peer-reviewing of scientific results 
> and thus efficiency and accountability of science in general. 
> 
> I know there are the Panton Principles, but I think (although its good 
> to have them) they are too strict to be applied in the general case for 
> the following reasons: 
> 
> 1. its not only about data, also algorithms and their implementations in 
> terms of software need to be made available 
> 
> 2. sometimes it is acceptable to have this data, algorithms, software be 
> releases publicly, but not under an open license. 
> 
> I imagine some kind of manifesto, which stresses the importance of 
> making scientific artifacts (i.e. data, software, models etc.) 
> available, maybe in different gradations similar to the LOD start badges 
> [1]. The gradations could be: 
> 
> 0. The scientific artifacts underlying a scientific publication are not 
> made available. 
> 
> 1. The scientific artifacts underlying a scientific publication are made 
> available in a limited way, which do not yet enable complete 
> reproducability. 
> 
> 2. All scientific artifacts underlying a scientific publication are made 
> available to the public, they enable complete reproducability but the 
> license they are made available under imposes restrictions potentially 
> limiting the reuse. 
> 
> 3. Data is published according to the panton principles and all software 
> underlying a scientific publication is made available under an 
> open-source compatible license. 
> 
> Once such a manifesto with these gradations is produced, journals and 
> conferences can link to it and require submissions to classify 
> themselves according to these criteria (and maybe that precedence will 
> be given to more works). 
> 
> Has someone of you seen something like this already? If not do you think 
> the creation of such a manifesto is useful and would you be interested 
> to work with me on that? 
> 
> Have a nice Sunday everybody, 
> 
> Sören 
> 
> [1] http://lab.linkeddata.deri.ie/2010/lod-badges/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> open-science mailing list 
> open-science at lists.okfn.org 
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20110212/8f20d277/attachment-0001.html>