From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search

Dewikify reviews?

Cameron Neylon 27 April 07 - Do we want to be able to dewikify the review section to provide The advantage is that it gives a single 'site' that will have a distinct identity. Downside is that it makes the Wiki nature less immediately obvious. In any case if this is a good idea then it might be sensible to do this earlier rather than later so as to minimise the amount of link fixing that is required?

    • Jason R. Kelly 18:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT): Yeah, this is probably a good idea. We can move to 'Reviews:' and then we at least have the option to provide de-wikify version if we want.
    • Cameron Neylon 17 July 07 - Ok, I will do this at some stage once we've done some more work on the DE review. I don't think we will be adding any more relevant pages so it shouldn't cause any more work. I will do it before we contact any editor at NAR about submitting a paper. Will probably have to think about cleaning up the front page at some point around then as well.
      • Jason R. Kelly 08:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT):OK, I moved the synthetic biology one over to the 'Reviews:' naming scheme, so it's all dewikified. Agree that we need to clean up the front page, I'll work on that a bit.
      • Cameron Neylon 19 July 2007 Have moved DE review across with all (I think) of its associated pages.

Maybe we should have a FAQ?

MSB not-so-open access

  • Jasonk 11:23, 6 March 2007 (EST): Anyone have any suggestions for good reviews?
    • Cameron Neylon 4 April 2007: I wrote a review a few years back for NAR on library construction methods for directed evolution which is here. It seems like re-use of this is fine and I have been thinking of writing an update for it. The NAR license allows re-use for non-comercial use. It might be possible to tie this into a an update in NAR as a Methods Online article. If some people are available to help on the technical side I could get in touch with the editor who handled the original article. Would this be of interest?
      • Reshma 10:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT): This would be a great idea!
      • Jasonk 11:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT): Yeah, absolutely, sounds perfect. If you need help with the technical side you can email reviews at openwetware dot org, and someone would be happy to help out.
    • Reviews/Synthetic biology -- review by Weiss et al in Molecular Systems Biology which is free to view, but at the moment not approved for derivative works. Pedro Beltrao is checking if we can do something about that.
  • pedrobeltrao 8 March 2007: Sorry, it looks like for copyright issues it will not be possible to use MSB content for this.
    • Jasonk 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST): Wow, not really "open access" I guess. That's pretty disappointing. However, I think the authors hold the copyright when they publish with MSB (see here where they describe their not-so-open access policy ), so if we can get Weiss et al to re-release it under a CC license with derivative works allowed then we're good to go, correct?
      • GregTyrelle 21:33, 8 March 2007 (EST) I don't remember the location of the discussion online, but if I recall correctly, authors have control over the pre-print copyright. So I think you are right, if we contact authors and ask permission to use the pre-print (if they don't have control over the published version's copyright) then this should be okay. A second suggestion is to move this discussion to OpenWetWare_talk:Reviews and revise the text of the page to make the goals more concrete.
      • pedrobeltrao 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST) I am not really sure about this. I think actually to change the copyright both the publisher and the authors would have to agree on changing it. Have a look at the Science Commons FAQ on the Author's Addendum. This addendum is meant to change the copyright of the publication and both the author and the publisher have to sign it.
        • Jasonk 19:08, 10 March 2007 (EST): Well the not-so-open access policy says author retains copyright, i assume that means on a pre-print version. I'll ask Ron and see what happens.
        • GregTyrelle 00:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT): After further investigation into pre-print copyright, is seems the situation is not straight-forward. It is not clear to me if, by default, all authors have copyright over their pre-prints, even if they have transfered the copyright of their peer-reviewed pre-print and post-print to a journal. On this page is seems authors have the right to self-archive, regardless of the copyright transfer. However this page suggests not. And the review I wanted to adopt is in very restrictive journal (this link is to an OA journal policy database, but it is down currently). I'm starting to think that to avoid any issues, only adopt a review from a non-CC licensed paper when abundantly clear on the license. Furthermore, the effort involved in going after the publisher and the authors to try and get permission, in the process trying to explain what this is all about, seems like more effort than writing a review from scratch.
          • Jasonk 14:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT):Yeah, you may be right about it being easier to start from scratch. I will talk with the folks at the science commons to see if they can give us a turnkey solution for getting the rights on a pre-print. They think about this stuff all the time.
            • Reshma 15:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT): In the specific case of the Weiss review from Nature Molecular Systems Biology, MSB appears to let authors retain copyright (as Jason suggested above). So I think that Ron and the other authors would have the right to grant us a license to publish that particular review on OWW. Authors of other reviews, which may be in other journals and not have that copyright policy, might not have that same option.
              • Sri Kosuri (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT): Not so sure on the MSB thing. Once again, I'm not a lawyer, but this is what we signed (PDF Warning) on publication to MSB.
                • Reshma 08:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT): Yikes. You might be right. That document is pretty confusing. It don't make a lot of sense to me how the author can retain copyright but yet have only a certain set of pre-specified non-exclusive rights (including one that allows the paper in your printed thesis but presumably not your electronic version???). But like Sri, I am not a lawyer. How obnoxious.
  • Jasonk 11:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT):I'm going to ask the science commons folks for some advice. Ron is happy to have us use the pre-print so long as we check in with the editors at MSB to make sure it's OK. So was going to check with Wilbanks first then ask if we could do whatever wilbanks suggests... sound good?
  • Reshma 14:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT): I think you should just go to George and get him to give us permission. Tell him that Ron already said yes. Wilbanks might know a lot about copyright law but going straight to George shortcuts the process.
    • Jasonk 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT): Done.

Lets get reviews started

Moved from OpenWetWare:Ideas page:

  • Jasonk 09:26, 6 October 2006 (EDT): Along the lines of adopt-a-protocol, it might be great to have adopt a topic area as well. Basically, trying to solve the problem of review articles always being out of date. It seems like the job of writing reviews would be much simpler if it was done on the fly as new papers came out. THat way when a new paper came accross your desk in the area you review you could read it, and then add the relevant details and the reference to the OWW Review page. This is in contrast to coming back to that same paper a year later when you're asked to write a review and having to re-read it, re-analyze it, etc. Seems like a win-win for the both the review-writer (less work) and the readers (who get a more up-to-date source.)
  • Jasonk 09:43, 26 February 2007 (EST): I think it might be worth trying this out with the 'curator' approach we discussed for Consensus protocols.

Nucleic acids research

Hi there, this journal restricts use to non-commercial applications, which I think is incompatible with CC licenses since these don't make any such restriction. You might want to check this carefully, since anything on this site is licensed under CC. Tim Vickers 12:52, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Cameron Neylon 15:02, 23 October 2007 (CDT)' I've partially answered this query here but will need to check this with NAR.