FORCE2015

Conference Committee Submissions

TOPICS

Submitted By: Anthony Watkinson - anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com

I have a hobby horse. Let us call it - "the real article of the future". My thesis is that the highly condensed structure of the modern scholarly article is partly due to the professionalization of scholarship and mainly due to the length restrictions of print. The main discussion is text with illustrations while much of science is illustrations explained by text. The abstract is for retrieval purposes only and it could be a summary. Methods cannot be reproduced because they are too compressed. Open Access e-0nly publishers have not made use of the unlimited space to enable changes. Dave de Roure, Cameron Neylon and Jeremy Frey are aware of my views but I am pressing them to speak on this

Submitted By: Eduard Hovy - hovy@cmu.edu

"Why have structured forms of papers+data not been universally accepted [yet]?" Panel plus discussion There have been numerous suggestions, ranging from small nanopublications that communicate just the presence of a paper, or its central result, to larger much more elaborate structures that in some formal form capture the essence of a paper and its surrounding context. But none of them has taken off. Is the problem the lack of tools? The effort in creating such structures? Hubris? The inadequacy of representation? The inability to use such structures once they have been created? Suggested speakers: - Anita de Waard, Elsevier - Bruce R Barkstrom, NASA Langley - Cameron Neylon,

Submitted By: Kristina Kangas - k_kangas@berkeley.edu

suggested topic: integrating social studies of science into pedagogy--how students learning about publication models can help change them, how post-publication peer-review has been used in education and incentive systems, the aspects of impact factor that put women and minorities at a disadvantage, how inappropriate citations can promote falsities in science, the levels of accessibility to research publications in the global south and its affect on their participation in the advancement of research for problems of global south

Submitted By: Scott Edmunds - scott@gigasciencejournal.com

How about a 'tools for reproducibility' session covering things like: a) executable pdfs b) the pros and cons of virtual machines (Titus Brown?) c) publishing workflows (James Tayor?) d) beyond the static figure/beyond cherry-picking/beyond the acid-bath: in-line reproducibility and image availability (Jason Swedlow?)

Submitted By: Mitar Milutinovic - mitar.force11@tnode.com

How can we improve accessibility of papers to the general public, instead of just working on open access. Open access is passive, you have access, but what then? We should also think about how to make science in general more accessible to the public, so that public can follow and better understand what science is.

Submitted By: Clare Wratten - clare.wratten@semantico.com

Two suggestions: The challenges around indexing multiple different types of content with reference to the work we have been doing with the Linking Hub product. Include case studies and technical details. Findings from our research with University of Sussex on optimal reading interfaces.

Submitted By: Sweitze Roffel - s.roffel@elsevier.com

technology and improving scientific reproducability

Submitted By: Melissa Haendel - haendel@ohsu.edu

Submitted By: Peter Jones - pjones@ocadu.ca

Multiperspectival reviews. There have been many calls for designing a more appropriate media experience and information format for enhancing citizen engagement with scientific and medical research. However, we overestimate the value original research articles have for ordinary people outside the domains of research application and information use. As media trend toward ever briefer blurbs such as Twitter, how do we connect research stories to real societal and human needs? If people aren't reading Scientific American and other summaries of current and popular science, they are not trending toward devouring open access basic research. Social science and science studies suggest that we might find ways to bridge the different languages and values of people in different domains of life, rather than expecting mere content design (as much as that IS needed) to grab new audiences. Bruno Latour's Modes of Existence offers a philosophical position on the psychosociological barriers imposed by belief systems he refers to by this concept. With another research in U of Toronto (P Pennefather) we've been exploring the value of collaborative interpretation of published research in the context of meaningful problems to people. We have a rough prototype but have run explorations manually to develop these social editing forms of interrogating the meaning of research. I'd propose this topic and would be pleased to discuss in a short workshop or related papers.

Submitted By: Leslie Smith - l.s.smith@cs.stir.ac.uk

(Following on from Roffel, Edmunds) Integrating readable text, services, workflows, software, data: the paper gets published (.pdf, for example), but also sufficient data, software and metadata on both data and software, to enable the intelligent reader to reproduce the work/experiments. This is specifically in those areas where reproducibility is important and possible (science, I suspect) - software modelling of systems, analysis of data, for example. (I know that reproducibility has been key in physics and chemistry for generations, but it is just as critical in simulation/modelling studies (of anything!), and in the analysis of datasets, and creation of results.) I know about Neurophysiology, but these concepts apply elsewhere. What technologies are best for this? Portal based data and workflow stored that can execute systems and modelling? Simple archival data stores alone don't seem to be enough: but what would suitable infrastructure be, and how should it be created and funded?

Submitted By: Leslie Smith - l.s.smith@cs.stir.ac.uk

(Following on from Roffel, Edmunds) Integrating readable text, services, workflows, software, data: the paper gets published (.pdf, for example), but also sufficient data, software and metadata on both data and software, to enable the intelligent reader to reproduce the work/experiments. This is specifically in those areas where reproducibility is important and possible (science, I suspect) - software modelling of systems, analysis of data, for example. (I know that reproducibility has been key in physics and chemistry for generations, but it is just as critical in simulation/modelling studies (of anything!), and in the analysis of datasets, and creation of results.) I know about Neurophysiology, but these concepts apply elsewhere. What technologies are best for this? Portal based data and workflow stored that can execute systems and modelling? Simple archival data stores alone don't seem to be enough: but what would suitable infrastructure be, and how should it be created and funded?

Submitted By: Martin Fenner - mf@martinfenner.org

Session suggestion: What lies beyond the PDF?. A session organized by Kaveh Bazergan, Martin Eve and Martin Fenner Scholarly documents come in all kinds of formats. Authors use Microsoft Word, Latex and experiment with Markdown and HTML, readers look at scholarly content in PDF and HTML format (and experiment with ePub), and long-term archiving is done in XML and PDF. Could there be one document format for all these functions, or will we continue to have to deal with multiple formats? And if so, how can we make the transition from one format to the next as painless as possible? And how do we preserve features such as rich metadata or embedded multimedia if we transition between formats. Is a format that works for the life sciences also appropriate for the humanities? The session will try to address these questions from a variety of perspectives and will make practical suggestions with regards to standards, tools, and experts to talk to.

Submitted By: Jennifer Lin - jlin@plos.org

Publishers and open data: if research data were publicly accessible, what could publishers do to realize its fullest value when associated with an article publication? Beyond display and linking, the possibilities abound, furthering reproducibility, scientific discovery, etc. Suggested speakers include publishers with open data policy, tool builders, and repositories with strong technical competency.

Submitted By: Andrew Varnell - Editor@neuro-cloud.net

Securing longterm project based funding for disruptive open academic paradigms

Submitted By: Jennifer Lin - jlin@plos.org

Reference manager support for data citations: Interactive session with publishers, reference manager providers (Mendeley, Papers, Zotero) to identify weaknesses of existing reference managers in facilitating data citation and formulate a model approach to address this issue in reference manager services based on Force11 data citation standards. Proposed session organizers, Martin Fenner and Jennifer Lin, welcome other interested parties to join.

Submitted By: Anita de Waard - a.dewaard@elsevier.com

Let's hack science funding! Many aspects of the current models of funding are preventing progress in science: exceedingly competitive reviewing processes that reward competition over collaboration lead to ego-centric lab cultures where data and thoughts are not shared; top-down review boards play favorites with established PIs and make it hard for creative newcomers to break in; rewarding novelty over thoroughness leads to irreproducible results. On the other hand, efforts such as Force11 and the various 'Open' initiatives- which have little money but great community buy-in - manage to achieve a great deal, in a short time, with a very heterogeneous community. Can we explore models to 'hack' the current funding system? What would it take to make getting an NIH grant an actually creative and constructive effort, and how can funding modes and models enable networked, collaborative and community-driven research? Obvious speakers include funders: Phil Bourne from NIH, Paul Cohen form DARPA and Amy Friedlander from the NSF would form my dream panel. Perhaps we can add people who have pursued other funding modes, e.g. someone from Kickstarter? Or other alternative funder models? <Anita de Waard>

Submitted By: Mike Lauruhn - m.lauruhn@elsevier.com

Under the umbrella of reproducibility and resource identification: How do we get more quality, discipline-specific vocabularies, taxonomies, ontologies, and other lists available to be integrated with research tools and workflows? What is the role of various stakeholders – societies, agencies, consortia, publishers, and other organizations -- in taking responsibility for the blessing such lists and then publishing them, and then handling the governance and maintenance? This would eventually lead to discussion about what formats such resources need to be maintained and distributed in so that they can be integrated into research workflows.

KEYNOTE SUGGESTIONS

Simone Teufel, Cambridge | Recommended By: Jodi Schneider
Peter van den Besselaar, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam | Recommended By: Jodi Schneider
Jason Priem, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam | Recommended By: Jodi Schneider
bell hooks, Berea University | Recommended By: Kristina Kangas
Owen Priestly, Toby Cole, Andrea Fallas, Semantico | Recommended By: Clare Wratten
Carole Goble, machester U and other | Recommended By: Sweitze Roffel
Paul Ginsparg, Cornell University | Recommended By: Melissa Haendel
Tyrone Hayes, UC Berkeley | Recommended By: Peter Jones
Amy Friedlander, NSF | Recommended By: Anita de Waard

Sponsors

Digital Science CrossRef Royal Society of Chemistry Europe PMC River Valley Technologies Overleaf Elsevier and Mendeley
Science Exchange National Science Foundation (NSF) Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Thomson Reuters Pensoft Publishers Ltd SSI
Oxford University Press Wiley Oxford e-Research Centre PLOS International Society for Biocuration