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

Fri Feb 10 19:51:36 UTC 2017

There are at least two, and possibly three, dimensions of "Open" here.
(See https://opensource.com/business/14/12/openwashing-more-prevalent  for
some background about inappropriate claims of Open).

* Open Source. This is *precisely* defined by OSI , and if only some of the
source code of Authorea is OSI-compliant then the tool itself cannot be
described as Open Source. Note that organizations, including governments
increasingly require Open products. Describing non-compliant products as
Open would at the least lead to rejection of their use and might end in
court.

* Open standards. Again governments are increasingly requiring tools to
conform to Open Standards with the specification of documents required to
comply with Open Documents (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument).
ODF is an ISO/OASIS standard. I do not know whetehr Authorea documents
conform to such a government-approved standard.

* Open Content. "Open Access" is not legally defined so has no reliable
interpretation. On this list "Open" would be taken to mean compliant with
CC BY, CC0 or a number of OD-approved licences (mainly from governments).
"Publicly visible" under no explicit copyright is not compliant

*Open Science. The role of this list is to help develop the concept and
practice of "Open Science". It will generally mean that all documents and
code are OD-compliant, that processes are deliberately transparent. In
general efforts will be made to add tools that enforce open practices where
this is technically possible.

Authorea may be a useful collaborative tool and some of its practitioners
may post OD-compliant material but this by itself does not guarantee Open
Science by the Open Definitions. Indeed most authoring /publishing tools
would fall into this category.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:24 PM, David Knutson <dknutson at plos.org> wrote:

> The How Open is it Guide may prove useful to this discussion (Spectrum of
> Open Access).
>
>
>
> https://www.plos.org/how-open-is-it
>
>
>
>
>
> David Knutson
>
> Mobile +1 651-260-8288 <(651)%20260-8288>
>
>
>
> *From:* open-science [mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On
> Behalf Of *The Winnower
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 10:38 AM
> *To:* Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> *Cc:* open-science <open-science at lists.okfn.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [open-science] A new collaborative editor for open science
>
>
>
> 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>
> wrote:
>
> 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)
>
>
>
> We have parts of the codebase open sourced: https://github.com/Authorea/
> texstyles
>
>
>
> * is all the content Open (can it be downloaded without further
> permissions)?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069 <+44%201223%20763069>
>
>
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170210/f3505a4c/attachment-0003.html>