[open-science] IPCC report
Daniel Lombraña González
teleyinex at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 09:05:24 UTC 2013
I think the connections with OAButton and CrowdCrafting have a lot of
possibilities. From my point of view, one that could be very useful for you
is the validation of reported closed papers/journals:
1.- A user reports a blocked paper with your tool.
2.- Your server stores that info, and automatically creates a task in a
CrowdCrafting app that you own.
3.- 30 (or more) people review that paper, so you can statistically
analyzed the answers regarding if it is closed or not.
4.- You get all the answers for that specific paper, validate them, and
publish them in your site as a story.
In the case of Peter's idea:
1.- The 9K references are created as tasks in a CrowdCrafting app.
2.- People answer all the questions that he wants to address, plus one that
is really relevant to your project.
3.- They gather all the answers, do the statistical analysis, and with the
conclusions automatically push that data to your platform.
If you want, they can include the button as part of the task. The idea is
to report directly to your platform which papers are not accessible from
CrowdCrafting.org. However, this may end up in generating too much noise
for you, as if I'm not mistaken you would like to have "validated
revisions". What do you think?
>From my experience, crowdsourced projects should include a validation step,
otherwise the conclusions will not be really "useful". In other words, I
think that you would like to say in your stories or results page, that a
given paper was reported as closed and that N different people agreed that
it is closed for public view.
These are just random thoughts, I'm just brainstorming :-) Comments are
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science