Page 1: "While Online Publishing has replaced most traditional printed journals in less than twenty years, today’s Online Publication Formats are still closely bound to the medium of paper. Collaboration is mostly hidden from the readership, and ‘final’ versions of papers are stored in ‘publisher PDF’ files mimicking print."
Page 5: "(see chapter 12, Fenner et al: Altmetrics and other measures for scientific impact)."
Page 6: "Despite the fact that the Internet allows for other procedures, the publication of a scholarly manuscript is organized around the release date of the publication."
Page 8: "Current conventions prevent scientific authors from reusing well-worded introductions or other paragraphs, despite the fact that from a truly scientific point of view, this would be totally acceptable if enough new content and results besides the copied and reused parts is present (Figure 1)... "It is important to notice that in many disciplines and scientific cultures, mainly humanities, textual reproduction with precious words and in a literary manner is a considerable feat which is beyond the pure transportation of information. Here, the reusing and remixing of content has to be seen in a different context."
Page 9: "Figure 2. Remixing is the concept of using text and parts of earlier publications to build a novel publication; remixing is currently restricted through legal and scientific cultures, however, remixing may become much more acceptable in the future—remixing has to be distinguished from scientific plagiarism. Creative Commons (CC-BY) (see chapter 19, Friesike: Case: Creative Commons) will change this and will make reuse and remixing possible."
Page 13: "The lifecycle of a dynamic publication is much harder to define than the life cycle of a static, traditional publication. Concepts such as ‘transclusion’ 4, ‘pull-requests’, and ‘forking’ 5 allow for different kinds of remixing and ‘reuse’ of earlier publications."
Page 14: "An important feature of dynamic publications is the availability of a history functionality so that older versions of the publication are still available and referencing to the older versions can occur."
Page 14: "Many of these remixing and reuse concepts stem from collaborative software development and many of these are in turn far removed from the current perception of the life cycle of scientific publications. It remains to be seen whether they can be integrated into the scientific publishing culture so that the systems in question benefit from it, and usability, as well as readability, can be assured."
Page 14-15: "Figure 6. Dynamic publications allow many novel concepts such as ‘forking’ (dividing one publication into two branches of working versions), ‘transclusion’ (reuse of text or images from another publication).... and ‘pull requests’ (a certain way of including updates from one forked working version into another.”
Page 16: "Some research fields are more suited to dynamic publication concepts, while others are less so. There are research cultures that might implement dynamic publications faster than others. Hard sciences/lab sciences are more suited for dynamic publications. Here, often novel, incremental findings just require small changes to a text, whereas in humanities comprehensive theories and interpretations might not be as suitable to be expressed in well-circumscribed changes of text."
Page 17: "Blog postings seem to already be on their trajectory to become a valuable part of the publication mix… Wikis represent websites with content that can be collaboratively changed by potentially very large groups of users. Despite the fact that the usage of wikis grew far beyond the remit of software development and encyclopedias, Wikipedia significantly influenced the wide reception of wikis."
Page 19: "Stack Exchange—message boards where threads are initiated by posting open questions Question centered message boards (“stack exchange”) like MathOverflow and BioStar (Parnell et al. 2011) consists of comment threads that are posted under a known ID. A thread is centered on a question, which is in contrast to blogs which provide more or less opinions, reviews, comments, overviews, or novel hypotheses. A reputation (‘Karma’) can be built by earning ‘likes’ or ‘views’ from other users within the community (initially introduced by Slashdot in the 90s). The questioner and the community (Paul et al. 2012) assesses as to whether the answers are sufficient and whether the thread should be closed, maximizing the potential gain in Karma. The incentives set by this leads to many useful and comprehensible answers at the end of a good browseable question thread. Orienting threads around questions leads to a question-centered discussion and the discussions in turn stay on topic."
Page 21: "For example, in 2011, FigShare (a commercial service) was introduced, serving as a free repository for the archiving and presentation of scientific results. Researchgate as well as Mendeley allow the publication of preprints; Mendeley allows the finding of dedicated reviewers for certain publications."
Page 27: References
"Pochoda, P., 2012. The big one: The epistemic system break in scholarly monograph publishing. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444812465143.
Pöschl, U., 2012. Multi-Stage Open Peer Review: Scientific Evaluation Integrating the Strengths of Traditional Peer Review with the Virtues of Transparency and Self- Regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.
Rice, C., 2013. Science research: three problems that point to a communications crisis. theguardian. Higher Education Network. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher- education-network/blog/2013/feb/11/science-research-crisis-retraction-replicability (http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2013/feb/11/science- research-crisis-retraction-replicability)."
