[open-science] A new collaborative editor for open science

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Feb 10 18:33:03 UTC 2017

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:53 PM, The Winnower <jnicholson at thewinnower.com>

> Hello list!
> My name is Josh Nicholson and I work at Authorea, a startup trying to
> improve how researchers write their manuscripts, grants etc. We've just
> announced the release our new editor and I wanted to share it with you in
> hopes that you find it useful and exciting
> You can see a demo of Authorea in action here: https://www.youtube.com/
> watch?v=Qa1ObxI_dqU
> A few interesting points:
> 1. Each article is a git repository that allows advanced version control
> and data management
> 2. You can write in Markdown, LaTeX, or Richtext
> 3. We offer direct submission to a growing list of journals
> 4. We are the only HTML preprint server.
> You can test it yourself here: https://www.authorea.com/signup
> I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have too!

[I comment since this list is run by the Open Knowledge (Foundation) and
promotes materials and processes consistent with the Open Definition which
it also manages. This is not intended to be confrontational, but to resolve
clarity in the light of many inappropriate uses of "Open" to promote
products and organisations.]

Could you please clarify exactly in what way this is or is not Open
Science? (I note that the Wikipedia article on Authorea describes it as
supporting "open science" but it is unclear how. It may well be Open
Science, in which case fine, but I cannot find this on the site). I have
helped to create the OKI's  Open Definition opendefinition.org ("free to
use, re-use, and redistribute") and note that simply "gratis" is not
"Open". In general Open materials and services are guaranteed by licences
or contractual clauses. I would not describe science published under an
open access licence as de facto Open science. Also a tool generating open
access articles is not, de facto, Open unless its licence complies with the
Open Definition.  (If this were true, then Microsoft Word could be
described as an Open Science tool. Similarly any collaborative tool used
for science - such as Google Docs could be described as "Open Science").

* is the source code Open? (OSI-compliant)
* is all the content Open (can it be downloaded without further
* are the processes openly scrutinisable and transparent?
* is there *specific* support for Open Science in the tool.

And, though this is a complex subject, is there any contractual legal
instrument ("Open lock") that prevents the tool or organization being sold
to a for-profit commercial company?


> Thanks for your time.
> Best,
> Josh
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170210/f15761f3/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list