Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

2013 CrossRef Annual Meeting Agile Publishing Kristen Ratan

3.828 visualizaciones

Publicado el

The manifesto behind agile development methodology states that the highest priority is to satisfy the customer, welcome change, iterate frequently and promote dialog. If we were to adopt these principles, what would scholarly communication look like?

Publicado en: Tecnología, Educación
  • Links to videos Kristen Ratan used in her presentation:

    http://www.crossref.org/annualmeeting/2013/Adam_on_reading_2.m4v

    http://www.crossref.org/annualmeeting/2013/Authorea.m4v

    http://www.crossref.org/annualmeeting/2013/Hypothes.is_Animated_Intro.MP4

    http://www.crossref.org/annualmeeting/2013/VidWiki.m4v
       Responder 
    ¿Estás seguro?    No
    Tu mensaje aparecerá aquí
  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

2013 CrossRef Annual Meeting Agile Publishing Kristen Ratan

  1. 1. PLOS Agile Publishing Kristen Fisher Ratan CrossRef Annual Meeting 13 November 2013
  2. 2. What is Agile? The philosophy behind agile software development: • satisfy the customer • welcome change • iterate frequently ` • build on a growing base • promote dialog If we were to adopt these principles, what would scholarly communication look like? 2
  3. 3. Stages • • • • • • Research, data analysis Authoring Assessment Publishing, producing Reading Curating, annotating 3
  4. 4. Agile Publishing • Researching, data creation: Collaborative, open, updated • Authoring: Early, versioned and iterative • Assessment: Rapid crowd assessment Publishing, producing: sharing, immediate • Reading: skimming, searching, word of mouth • Curation: collaborative, crowd-sourced, annotation, disaggregated 4
  5. 5. What is Publishing? 5
  6. 6. Reporting 6
  7. 7. Is publishing useful? 7
  8. 8. Stages • • • • • • Research, data analysis Authoring Assessment Publishing, producing Reading Curating, annotating 8
  9. 9. Research / Data 9
  10. 10. Github as collaboration tool 10
  11. 11. Figshare as data repository 11
  12. 12. F1000 Research Data plotting 12
  13. 13. Anthony Salvagno’s open lab notebook
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. Authoring 15
  16. 16. Authoring tools out there • • • • • • • Booktype Subversion Authorea Fiduswriter WriteLatex ShareLatex Lanyrd 16
  17. 17. Authorea 17
  18. 18. Booktype platform for Book Sprints 18
  19. 19. Assessment 19
  20. 20. PLOS Labs: Alternate Evaluation • Design and testing of novel evaluation system: – Simple and Fast – Structured – Transparent with open data – Potential for larger number of peers providing feedback – Can be collected pre- or post publication – General to scientific research outputs
  21. 21. Collection areas Factors connected to journal titles: 1 Personal interest 2 Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge Factors connected to traditional peer review: 3 Validity and Scientific Merit 4 Writing, Presentation, and Clarity
  22. 22. 2 Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge This work makes little to no contribution to science knowledge This work makes a minor contribution to the field of study If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: I think this work was not worth doing This work makes a significant contribution to science knowledge This work advances the field If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: This work is a major scientific breakthrough This work has an important or novel method This work will lead to reinterpretation of wellestablished findings This work opens a new area of inquiry in the field This work has an important or significant conclusion:
  23. 23. Publishing /Producing 23
  24. 24. Medium.com - blogging platform 24
  25. 25. When authoring and publishing collide 25
  26. 26. Authoring, Producing, & annotating 26
  27. 27. Reading 27
  28. 28. “If you put an author and a reader in a room together would the author read her article to the reader?” -John Sack 28
  29. 29. HighWire user research Reading Isn’t What It Used To Be: • 2002: “I read 3-4 journals regularly” • 2012: “I read 8-10 journals regularly” Huh? HighWire | Stanford University 29
  30. 30. Email TOC is reading HighWire | Stanford University 30
  31. 31. Adam Hyde on Readers 31
  32. 32. Curation/Annotation/ Collaboration 32
  33. 33. Wikipedia- versioning done well 33
  34. 34. Reddit: good site design isn’t everything 400M users 37B page views 34
  35. 35. PubMed Commons 35
  36. 36. Hypothes.is 36
  37. 37. With all these rapid and immediate forms of authoring, curating and collaborating, will future generations of scientists will wait for us to publish anything? 37
  38. 38. Reputation 38
  39. 39. Scholars need • • • • • • • Publications Brand-named journals Impact factors Citations H-index CVs Tenure/promotion 39
  40. 40. ALM Reports alm.plos.org Allows researchers, institutions & funders to: • create a report of the ALMs for a single or set of PLOS articles • view a summary of the metrics along with an accompanying set of data visualizations. Search based on: • keyword • author name & country • affiliation • publication date • subject areas • funder 40
  41. 41. ALM Reports Metrics Visualizations 41
  42. 42. Stackoverflow: emerging reputation systems 42
  43. 43. Open Source Report Card 43
  44. 44. Scholars will organically replace the journal with what they find more useful 44
  45. 45. http://www.wordle.net/create kratan@plos.org @kristenratan 45

×