• http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ Egon Willighagen

    I am not convinced that a journal article is at all (Open or not) the right platform for Open Science. Unless they radically change the editorial requirements for papers around machine readability, meaning (use of ontologies, unique identifiers), requirements for enough experimental detail, access to original raw experimental data, etc… unless all that is *also* done by this journa, it will just be another Glossy that a Open Science community really is not waiting for.

  • Paweł Szczęsny

    At OAI7 there was interesting talk on nanopublications (that is a experimentally [with broad definition of what 'experimental' means] verified assertion expressed as a triple) – that actually might be a better venue for Open Science than any of current publishing models. However, a serious discussions on nanopublications will not happen unless we drift away from old way of publishing, measuring impact, etc. Glossy or not, the new journal might prepare ground for the next idea – research reporting has to change dramatically and OA might not be sufficient.

    That said I think folks at involved institutions are smart people – I wouldn't be surprised if most of the things you ask for ended in the submission guidelines. They might already know that "freely available" isn't that much of a difference in the long term.

  • http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ Egon Willighagen

    I guess you are referring to the talk by Barend Mons? I think there is certainly room for this kind of nanopublication, but the gap between the current publication and this nanopublication is enormous. I think we first needs to seek something in between. With the funding these three partners can throw in, they can in fact develop a publishing platform that does things right. They have no excuse not to. I believe in incremental evolution (well, it worked for my existence), and while a publishing revolution sounds good to me, I think the larger scholarly community would rather see the current publication evolve into something 21st century… oh hell, into something late 20th century would be nice already.

  • Paweł Szczęsny

    Yes, that's his talk. The gap is indeed large and I wonder if BMC's Research Notes could drift in that direction. FigShare is also heading towards the same idea. That might be the evolution you refer to. Only if we could get past initial "sky will fall if we do that"…

  • Chris Taylor

    Unconvinced about nanopubs for the same reason as I am about the RDF thing in general — almost useless without mature, consensual ontologies to provide reliable values for two of the three parts of the triple.

    Main thing I'd like to see from the new journal's sponsors is an enormous general repository for supporting data…