Froc11: Group1-Day1 The mini-visions from each participant: What are we already doing in this community to improve scintific publishing? and what could we do next? Notes Group 1 -Day 1

Map Node  Notes Group 1 -Day 1 url anchor

Question Node  QUESTIONS RAISED url anchor

Question Node  How much the research domain matter when thinking about new publication forms? url anchor

Question Node  How we do effectively collaborate? url anchor

Question Node  How we relate the kind of tool we have and integrate them so that the scientist can play with them? url anchor

Answer Node  We need to formulate a use cases, we could generate a vision on what happen if we put all this together url anchor

Question Node  What are we already doing in this community to improve scintific publishing? and what could we do next?  url anchor

Views: The mini-visions from each participant: What are we already doing in this community to improve scintific publishing? and what could we do next? , Notes Group 1 -Day 1

Answer Node  infromation and data curation url anchor

Question Node   How we maximize the imput and first pass of information curation? url anchor

Question Node  What is the role of curators to validate NLP resutls? url anchor

Question Node  How do we have researchers buying in new ways of publishing? url anchor

Answer Node  We should aim to be contagious? People can register and share their things url anchor

Answer Node  Issues of time url anchor

Question Node  How rapid should be the science production loop, from data to publication to sceince communication? There is a Pre and post publication aspects, the quicker a publication can be devolved the faster is the impact on people citing that data. url anchor

Question Node  What do researchers would need to know from others? url anchor

Question Node  What are the bottleneks of open science url anchor

Answer Node  Shareing is a bottle neck: scientists are not available to share they are fine to collaborate and publish but not sharing, because there is not recognition and there are potentially negative effects. There is no police and penalty url anchor

Answer Node  We need funding body and journals that penalize who does not share url anchor
Answer Node  We can invent mechanism to detect who does not share, i.e if a pub derives form a work it is not collaborative, probably it does not connect to the other reasearch artifacts out there  url anchor

Answer Node  We do not have a good Value proposition : reservation for self use  url anchor

Answer Node  Knowling what I have in my lab url anchor

Question Node  What do scientists need? url anchor

Answer Node  Recovery and archive of data, plus access controll to data url anchor

Answer Node  Productivity, I want to be helped into publishing more url anchor

Answer Node  How do we make the litterature more effectively used, and how we make people understandable and unseful to them . url anchor
Con Node  People do not like paper summarization, they do not trust the conceptual model presented they think it is limited url anchor
Con Node  There is no accreditation for doing annotation, knowdlge curation or any king of paper summary url anchor
Question Node  What are the incentive we propose for doing this activities? url anchor

Answer Node  Information complextity I want to be helped to read the right papers in the right (also interdisciplinary thing) url anchor

Answer Node  Whould be good knowing what the most relevant paper are.  url anchor
Top