[open-science] A new collaborative editor for open science
jnicholson at thewinnower.com
Fri Feb 10 18:38:20 UTC 2017
Sure, happy to clarify! Although I might disagree with your definition of
exactly what Open is/means. I think there can be a spectrum when talking
about Open and that not all requirements of yours need be met, although I
am sure that is a point of disagreement amongst many in science.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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/
>> 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)
We have parts of the codebase open sourced:
> * is all the content Open (can it be downloaded without further
This is at the author's discretion, similar to bioRxiv.
* are the processes openly scrutinisable and transparent?
Again, at the author's discretion but in general, yes.
> * is there *specific* support for Open Science in the tool.
Yes, we allow researchers to upload and share postprints/preprints as
online web documents, not just PDF or Word.
> 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?
We are a for-profit company.
>> Thanks for your time.
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> 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
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069 <+44%201223%20763069>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science