[open-science] Publication of In-Depth Content
william.gunn at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 02:01:08 UTC 2015
Supplementary Information is commonly used in Biomedical Science, too, for
massive datasets that don't really fit in the paper, as well as for longer
parts of methods.
Not to get too far afield, but the ideal thing to do is to decouple the
parts, so that the narrative, data, code /methods / proofs are separate but
interlinked. That's what I'd expect of a Web - native publication.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 2:45 PM Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Florian Meier <florian.meier at koalo.de>
>> Hi Stephanie and Mike,
>> I have never heard about Supplementary Information in Computer Science,
>> but that does not mean anything. The concept as explained by you seems to
>> be exactly what I was thinking about (though, I have to imitate it somehow).
>> It's very common in chemistry and often runs to over 200 pages.
>> In my opinion this approach is still advantageous, even without page
>> limits. Yes, a perfect researcher would be able to structure a single paper
>> well enough, but in reality the probability is high that very specific
>> implementation details are scattered throughout the text.
>> A similar problem can be seen with standard documents (ISO, DIN,
>> IEEE...). The nature of being a standard requires of course very specific
>> details, but it is quite difficult to get the overall picture.
>> Either way, the author should provide a clear distinction between content
>> for "curious readers" and content only needed to actually implement it. If
>> he puts the latter into a separate section, the appendix or the SI should
>> not matter a lot.
> An operational distinction made by some publishers is that the SI is
> outside the paywall. This means we can read the experimental but not always
> the arguments or conclusions.
>> In my opinion, publishing material on a personal webpage should only be
>> the last resort. The probability of loosing the content is far too high and
>> there are so many good alternatives.
>> On 01/20/2015 05:15 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:
>>> For what it's worth: I think that Supplementary Information is stupid
>>> in an online paper. The only reason for it is when it's too big to
>>> print, but when length limits become irrelevant, so does the
>>> distinction between the "main paper" and the SI.
> Except for the paywall.
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science