On 2014-07-28 16:16, Paul Houle wrote:
I'd add to all of this publishing the raw data, source code, and industrialized procedures so that results are truly reproducible, as few results in science actually are.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sarven Capadisli <i...@csarven.ca> wrote:2. Publish your progress and work following the Linked Data design principles. Create a URI for everything that is of some value to you and may be to others e.g., hypothesis, workflow steps, variables, provenance, results etc.
Agreed, but I think point 2 covers that. It was not my intention to give a complete coverage of the scientific method. Covering reproducibility is a given. It also goes for making sure that all of the publicly funded research material is accessible and free. And, one should not have to go through a 3rd party service ("gatekeepers") to get a hold of someone else's knowledge.
If we can not have open and free access to someone else's research, or reproduce (within reasonable amount of effort), IMO, that "research" *does not exist*. That may not be a popular opinion out there, but I fail to see how such inaccessible work would qualify as scientific. Having to create an account on a publisher's site, and pay for the material, is not what I consider accessible. Whether that payment is withdrawn directly from my account or indirectly from the institution I'm with (which still comes out of my pocket).
Any way, this is discussed in great detail elsewhere by a lot of smart folks. Like I said, I had different intentions in my proposal i.e., DIY. Control your own publishing on the Web. If you must, hand out a copy e.g., PDF, to fulfil your h-index high-score.
-Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
