[open-science] Making science more accountable and efficient

Tue May 17 19:59:37 UTC 2011

Hi all,

The email below was sent to this list by me a while ago and there seemed
to be generally a positive view on the ideas by most of you. In order to
make some practical step to bring this forward I created an explanatory
wiki page at:

http://wiki.okfn.org/wg/science/Repeat%20and%20Reuse

Please feel free to revise and add further information and/or links to
related activities.

In future, when charing a conference or workshop I'm planning to put a
link to these Repeat & Reuse levels and ask authors to classify their
submitted papers according to these levels. Maybe you want to do the same?

Hopefully constant dripping wears the stone ;-)

Best,

Sören

Am 12.02.2011 20:56, schrieb Sören Auer:
> 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
> 