W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2016

Re: CFP: First International Workshop on Reproducible Open Science (RepScience 2016)

From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 06:39:41 -0600
Message-Id: <6761A150-34BA-4578-8507-89BCFC7DF0D3@gmail.com>
Cc: Oscar Corcho <ocorcho@fi.upm.es>, "Oscar Corcho (UPM)" <ocorcho@cs.man.ac.uk>, Public LOD <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web W3C <semantic-web@w3.org>, "e-ciencia@upv.es" <e-ciencia@upv.es>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>

I am a fan of your linked research work. But I think it's a bit unjust to characterize D-Lib Magazine as fitting in the category "via paper and desktop/print centric tools and formats." 

D-Lib is, and has since its start in 1995, been an HTML-only journal that has served the Digital Library community very well. Just recently, I published a paper [1] in D-Lib in which the editors agreed  to allow me to diverge from their template in order to demonstrate the Robust Links [2] approach to combat reference rot in scholarly communication. We had tried to achieve the same with a paper about reference rot in PLOS ONE [3] but our request was declined. 

While I agree that D-Lib does not represent an incarnation of your intended paradigm shift, I really don't think they are the enemy either. 

BTW: Maybe you could consider supporting Robust Links in your work. It's all about long-term access and integrity of the web-based scholarly record and hence should be of interest to you.



[1] Van de Sompel, H., and Nelson, M.L. (2015) Reminiscing About 15 Years of Interoperability Efforts. D-Lib Magazine, 21(11/12). DOI:10.1045/november2015-vandesompel, http://dx.doi.org/10.1045/november2015-vandesompel

[2] Robust Links spec. http://robustlinks.mementoweb.org/spec/ 

[3] Klein, M., Van de Sompel, H., Sanderson, R., Shankar, H., Balakireva, L., Zhou K., and Tobin, R. (2014) Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot. PLoS ONE, 9(12): e115253. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253 

> On May 10, 2016, at 06:04, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
>> On 2016-05-10 06:51, Oscar Corcho wrote:
>> ###### Paper Submission ######
>> Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers.
>> Submitted manuscripts will have to be in the range of 4000-5000 words and
>> edited with OpenOffice Writer or Microsoft Word, following the "Matters of
>> style" section in the author guidelines for D-Lib Magazine.
>> Papers submitted to the workshop will undergo a single-blind peer-review
>> process by Program Committee members. Accepted papers will be published as
>> a special issue of the D-Lib Magazine journal, in the first Quarter of
>> 2017. To be published on the proceedings, accepted contributions should be
>> revised according to the reviews and consider the feedback from the
>> workshop. Moreover, at least one author is required to register and
>> present the paper at the workshop.
> Why is this workshop encouraging "reproducible" "open science" via paper and desktop/print centric tools and formats?
> Is the intention to "reproduce" still based on classical methods? For example, how do you propose that the accepted works of this workshop are reproduced?
> What do you think about taking the initiative towards this "paradigm shift":
> http://csarven.ca/linked-research-scholarly-communication
> If that is of interest, what do you think it would require for this workshop to embrace that?
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 13:07:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:45 UTC