[open-science] A new collaborative editor for open science
penev at pensoft.net
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.
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
> 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
>> 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
Prof. Dr. Lyubomir Penev
12 Prof. Georgi Zlatarski Street
1700 Sofia, Bulgaria
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2186-5033>
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...
More information about the open-science