Publishing Group: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:
*Hal Abelson and John Wilbanks gave interesting talks on [http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/270/ Open Networks and Open Society: The Relationship between Freedom, Law, and Technology].
*Hal Abelson and John Wilbanks gave interesting talks on [http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/270/ Open Networks and Open Society: The Relationship between Freedom, Law, and Technology].
*An [http://www.oecd.org OECD] report on scientific publishing was published a couple of weeks ago and seems especially relevent. Here are links to the [http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,2340,en_2649_34487_35397879_1_1_1_1,00.htm press release] and [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/35393145.pdf report]
*An [http://www.oecd.org OECD] report on scientific publishing was published a couple of weeks ago and seems especially relevent. Here are links to the [http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,2340,en_2649_34487_35397879_1_1_1_1,00.htm press release] and [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/35393145.pdf report]
==Discussion==
This [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7528374&query_hl=2 paper] was published in Nucleic Acids Research in 1994. How different is this publication from the sort that was being discussed at the Tuesday lunch meeting? In a "B.E.Letters" model for publishing parts, would each author be independently credited for each of the ShineDalgarno/ATG spacings? That looks like 20 or more publications from this one.... (from [[User:Nkuldell | Natalie]])
:- I think that since each of these parts is just a member of a part family, a publication might describe the family and the range of performance within that family rather than each part individually.  One could envisage that "family characterization" will be the norm anyway since engineers will need access to a range of parts with similar function but different performance characteristics to suit different system designs.--[[User:Bcanton|BC]]
:- That sounds like a valuable publication for lots of folks, even biologist....smile. --[[User:nkuldell | Natalie]]

Revision as of 12:17, 6 October 2005

There is a current opportunity in Synthetic Biology to re-evalute issues relating to scientific publishing. We are discussing possible improvements/alternatives that we would like to see, and how possibly to go about implementing them.

Announcements

Please add your ideas/questions below that you would like to discuss.

Past Meetings

10/4/05

10/6/05

Things to discuss

  1. Do we need a Synthetic Biology specific journal?
  2. Does the peer review process, as practiced work?
  3. Is peer review needed for engineering research articles?
  4. What features would we like for our papers? Reader comments? Reader Wiki?
  5. How should the structure of a paper be changed to reflect things like, well, the Internets?
  6. What existing journals are the most appropriate/receptive venues for publication of SB work?
  7. How is publishing on SB topics different from any other field?
  8. What are the other (if any) alternate publishing models already out there?
  9. Non-synthetic biology improvement:Author IDs or URIs or something. Noticed this while trying to set up myNCBI searches for people with more common names, what a pain. I'm changing my name to xyuitk.
  10. Can we ensure that publishing and access to publications is equally open to all institutions regardless of rank?
  11. <your question/idea>

Relevant material

Retrieved from "https://openwetware.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Publishing_Group&oldid=7332"