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)."
"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... Concepts such as ‘transclusion’ , ‘pull-requests’, and ‘forking’ allow for different kinds of remixing and ‘reuse’ of earlier publications... 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. This might not only be of interest to historians of science, but may also be very valuable in assessing the merits of earlier scientific discoveries and documenting scientific disputes. 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."
"While openness can be seen as a tool for assuring quality and preventing scientific misconduct, at the same time it puts researchers under great pressure. Usually early versions of documents are full of spelling mistakes and errors and not meant to be seen by the public; furthermore, they usually lack approval from all coauthors. A possible solution allows for some parts of the publication and editing process to take place with limited visibility in a working version. After all authors have approved a version or a revision, this version can become part of the public version (Figure 5). The step from working version to public version would be based on some internal ‘gatekeeping’ criteria, such as the discussion and consent of all authors, making the process similar to that of the peer-review process. However, the peer-review is done by people other than the authors themselves and the peer-reviewing process can be organized by a quality-granting authority such as a journal."
“Figure 1. Today’s scientific publications are static—meaning finalized versions exist that cannot be changed. Dynamic publication formats have become possible with the Internet. The publication can now evolve with the development of new knowledge. In dynamic publications many parts and texts can be ‘reused’ (as represented by the parts of the text that keep the color; new additions represent novel scientific knowledge).”
“The knowledge creation process is highly dynamic. However, most of current means of scholarly publications are static, that means, they cannot be revised over time. Novel findings or results cannot contribute to the publications once published, instead a new publication has to be released. Dynamic publication formats will change this. Dynamic publication formats are bodies of text / graphic / rich media that can be changed quickly and easily while at the same time being available to a wide audience.”
“With the Internet came new possibilities for publishing, transporting results, and defining the nature of ‘a publication’. Dynamic publications can adapt to the development of knowledge. Just as Wikipedia is developing towards completeness and truth, why not have scientific publications that develop in pace with the body of scientific knowledge?”
“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. This might not only be of interest to historians of science, but may also be very valuable in assessing the merits of earlier scientific discoveries and documenting scientific disputes.”
“A SNS for scientists combined with a text editing and publishing platform might be the ideal platform to realize a dynamic publication system.”
“Publishing preprints, postprints, or even the peer-review process allows the tracking of the development of a final version of a scholarly article”
“Its impact is measured by counting the amount of citations to it, references which result at article level … it remains unclear as to whether the article is referenced as a citation within the introduction, a reference to similar ‘Material and Methods,’ or whether the cited article is being disputed in the discussion”
The production process is not visible to the reader … currently, final versions of scholarly publications do not contain traces of their production process.
The contribution of individual authors is not visible
Finalized versions do not allow changes, thus making corrections and additions nearly impossible
The current publication system is a consequence of a scholarly knowledge dissemination system which developed in times before the Internet when printing and disseminating printed issues of papers were the only means for distributing scientific results.
Dynamic.. Meaning no static version exists. Dynamic publications evolve.
Working version
Message boards where threads are initiated by posting open questions leads to a question-centered discussion and the discussions in turn stay on topic