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

Sun Feb 12 08:09:57 UTC 2017

For the sake of justness, I believe RIO Journal <riojournal.com>and its 
predecessor, the Biodiversity Data Journal <bdj.pensoft.net>, launched 
in 2013 (!), have already successfully demonstrated in reality this kind 
of "version-controlled journal", based on an entirely new, end-to-end, 
XML-based, solution, branded now as ARPHA-XML 
<http://arphahub.com/about/platform> journal publishing platform.

Bet regards,

Lyubomir

On 2/12/2017 9:15 AM, Puneet Kishor wrote:
> The assertion that "Open licensing is not necessary and does not 
> accomplish as much as making works free to read does" makes no sense. 
> You can have free to read without being openly licensed but you can't 
> have openly licensed without being free to read. By that measure, open 
> licensing *has* to accomplish at least as much as being free to read. 
> In reality, open licensing can accomplish a lot more by allowing 
> derivative works that depend upon more than just fair use.
>
> Additionally, just as "new knowledge builds on previous knowledge," so 
> does software, ostensibly *a* kind of knowledge. Version control helps 
> distinguish and track the new from the old. One doesn't *have* to be a 
> programmer to understand, appreciate, use and benefit from that.
>
> `git` is a popular version control software with certain 
> characteristics (distributed, with complete local copies and history) 
> that make it ideal to build a system of knowledge that is open. Some 
> parts of this system may be more open than others but the underlying 
> framework makes openness—provenance, attribution, validation and 
> reproducibility—possible. Almost two years ago I (with a colleague of 
> mine in Mumbai) envisioned a version controlled journal, much of the 
> practical part of which seems to be realized by Authorea (see 
> http://punkish.org/Version-Controlled-Journal). `git` is fabulous, but 
> atrociously difficult to use. Tools like Authorea can help us benefit 
> from `git` without learning `git`.
>
> To be clear, Authorea is not the only tool in this space. There are 
> several others (I saw a number of such tools demoed at the Hypotesis 
> conf in SF in 2014). Having a choice is always good for us, the users, 
> and it is very important for these tools to make money and not just 
> survive but thrive and become better. I wish Authorea well.
>
>
> --
> Puneet Kishor
> Just Another Creative Commoner
> http://punkish.org/About
>
> On Feb 11, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Heather Morrison 
> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca <mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Open source software is an analogy that may work for some types of 
>> knowledge (especially computer software), but not all types of 
>> knowledge.
>>
>> New knowledge builds on previous knowledge. This has always been the 
>> case, and still is the case even with All Rights Reserved copyright. 
>> Open licensing is not necessary and does not accomplish as much as 
>> making works free to read does.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Prof. Dr. Lyubomir Penev
Managing Director
Pensoft Publishers
12 Prof. Georgi Zlatarski Street
1700 Sofia, Bulgaria
Tel +359-2-8704281
Fax +359-2-8704282
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2186-5033>
Journals: http://www.pensoft.net/journals
Publishing services for journals: http://www.pensoft.net/services-for-journals
Books published by Pensoft: http://www.pensoft.net/books-published-by-Pensoft
Services for scientific projects: http://www.pensoft.net/projects
Find us on: Facebook, Google+, Twitter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170212/d3901c79/attachment-0003.html>