Difference between revisions of "Publishing Group"

From OpenWetWare
Jump to: navigation, search
(Relevant material)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''Please add your ideas/questions below that you would like to discuss.'''
'''Please add your ideas/questions below that you would like to discuss.'''
*'''Aug 7th 06: '''Please see [[OpenWetWare:Information management/a model for novel publishing]]
==Past Meetings==
==Past Meetings==

Revision as of 14:09, 7 August 2006

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.


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

Past Meetings



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


Perhaps we should begin gathering thoughts on a secondary page that synthesizes our discussions into a logical format. Perhaps the beginning of that is here. -Sri Kosuri 15:22, 6 Oct 2005 (EDT)