Networking - Revision history

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-25T05:35:08Z

‎Introduction

Axfelix: /* Marginalia */

2010-06-24T16:15:08Z

‎Marginalia

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-18T04:01:16Z

‎Introduction

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-18T03:50:27Z

‎Introduction

Jmacgreg: /* Data Sharing */

2010-06-17T22:09:55Z

‎Data Sharing

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-17T18:45:50Z

‎Introduction

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-17T18:44:50Z

‎Introduction

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-17T18:18:45Z

‎Introduction

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-17T18:15:43Z

‎Introduction

Axfelix: /* Introduction */

2010-06-17T18:15:22Z

‎Introduction

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 * Perhaps trivial, but worth noting in light of the current demo (http://mdouglas.etcl.uvic.ca/ojs2/) that there's still no well-established interface for saving highlighted text. Javascript buttons for different colors aren't entirely intuitive -- highlighting text simply doesn't feel like a weighty act. jQuery implementation for interacting directly with the text (e.g. the "speech bubble" interface discussed above) is probably ideal.
 == Research networks ==
@@ Line 47: / Line 48: @@
 == Automatic linking and indexing ==

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 * Many OJS users still work exclusively with PDF, where HTML annotation breaks down (see a parallel example of this in Zotero). Advising users on best practices for Adobe Reader annotation is unideal -- features are poorly-documented and not well-used (try searching "adobe reader annotation" on Google), and can not be shared independently of the entire document. Foxit and PDF-XChange are no better until you get to the paid versions. Even if we provide the ability to re-upload commented PDFs and link versioned documents (as in Nature Precedings pre-print archive), this loses a lot of the convenience from annotation.
-* Perhaps trivial, but worth noting in light of the current demo (http://mdouglas.etcl.uvic.ca/ojs2/) that there's still no well-established interface for saving highlighted text. Javascript buttons for different colors aren't entirely intuitive -- highlighting text simply doesn't feel like a weighty act. jQuery implementation for interacting directly with the text (e.g. the "speech bubble" interface discussed above) is probably ideal.
+* The only established and well-medium for PDF annotation right now is, in fact, the iPhone.
 == Research networks ==

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 == Marginalia ==
-Enabling annotation and sharing of marginalia in HTML open-access journals has been well-implemented into PLoS ONE, and the potential for integration into OJS has been well-studied (Kopak & Chiang, 2007).
+Enabling annotation and sharing of marginalia in HTML open-access journals has been well-implemented into PLoS ONE, and the potential for integration into OJS has been well-researched (Kopak & Chiang, 2007).
 * Although it makes sense to implement mechanism for the clustering and relevance-weighting of public annotations, and this has been relatively well-studied (see Han & Yan, 2009, JIS, for an excellent review and a novel algorithm), a manual "flag and approve" system has proven the most effective for PLoS.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 18 June 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	* treeBASE/GenBank probably less relevant as specialized repositories for OJS journal data?		* treeBASE/GenBank probably less relevant as specialized repositories for OJS journal data?
		+

	== Marginalia ==		== Marginalia ==

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Sharing research data is gaining popularity at the forefront of the open access movement (Piwowar, 2007), but is still relatively unpopular, owing to the reluctance of scholars to format and provide reusable data alongside research submissions.
-* OJS could provide a means to attach raw data (not displayed in the text itself) to article submissions, which would then be automatically ingested into searchable data repositories such as http://datadryad.org via plugin support, potentially removing the greatest obstacle to data sharing.
+* OJS provides a means for authors to attach raw data (not displayed in the text itself) to article submissions: authors are able to upload multiple supplementary files during the submission process (and enter keywords for them). Journal Managers decide whether these supplementary files should be made publicly available with the submission, through the Reading Tools, at a general level (ie. not on a per-submission basis).
-* treeBASE/GenBank probably less relevant as specialized repositories for OJS journal data?
+* These materials could then be automatically ingested into searchable data repositories such as http://datadryad.org via plugin support, potentially removing the greatest obstacle to data sharing.
 == Marginalia ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 17 June 2010
Line 54:		Line 54:
	* Strict opt-in privacy controls needed (probably wouldn't want to share e.g. author accept/reject information).		* Strict opt-in privacy controls needed (probably wouldn't want to share e.g. author accept/reject information).

−	* Not clear whether tools for direct collaboration are necessary or valuable here (what can PKP offer beyond Google Docs?) -- however, potentially invaluable in terms of data mining and ~~looking at~~ usage statistics. Looking at whether researchers want their reading behavior tracked is worth a study in its own right, but comes back to the original issue: they usually can't be bothered.	+	* Not clear whether tools for direct collaboration are necessary or valuable here (what can PKP offer beyond Google Docs?) -- however, potentially invaluable in terms of data mining and usage statistics. Looking at whether researchers want their reading behavior tracked is worth a study in its own right, but comes back to the original issue: they usually can't be bothered.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 17 June 2010
Line 45:		Line 45:

	== User mapping ==		== User mapping ==
		+
		+	Paradigmatic case: on the freely-hosted WordPress.org network, users have a consistent username, profile, and avatar which loosely unifies activity across blog comments. Individual WordPress installations do not have this advantage, but perhaps benefit from the consistent interface of the former.
		+
		+	* Why was this judged not worth the trouble to harvest and maintain from a platform which is, like PKP, decentralized but relatively universal? Certainly less authority implicit in a blog versus an academic journal, although WP install is (barely) nontrivial enough that anybody going to the trouble must have some vested interest in its use. Is every WP commenter of value to the system? Every PKP <i>author</i> certainly would be.
		+
		+	* My instinct is that this would be (perhaps alone) doable in terms of a centralized repository -- it's unclear whether there is an effective method in place for crawling all public instantiations of OJS (there should be), but scraping this data would be relatively non-intensive.
		+
		+	* Strict opt-in privacy controls needed (probably wouldn't want to share e.g. author accept/reject information).
		+
		+	* Not clear whether tools for direct collaboration are necessary or valuable here (what can PKP offer beyond Google Docs?) -- however, potentially invaluable in terms of data mining and looking at usage statistics. Looking at whether researchers want their reading behavior tracked is worth a study in its own right, but comes back to the original issue: they usually can't be bothered.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 17 June 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	* Many OJS users still work exclusively with PDF, where HTML annotation breaks down (see a parallel example of this in Zotero). Advising users on best practices for Adobe Reader annotation is unideal -- features are poorly-documented and not well-used (try searching "adobe reader annotation" on Google), and can not be shared independently of the entire document. Foxit and PDF-XChange are no better until you get to the paid versions. Even if we provide the ability to re-upload commented PDFs and link versioned documents (as in Nature Precedings pre-print archive), this loses a lot of the convenience from annotation.		* Many OJS users still work exclusively with PDF, where HTML annotation breaks down (see a parallel example of this in Zotero). Advising users on best practices for Adobe Reader annotation is unideal -- features are poorly-documented and not well-used (try searching "adobe reader annotation" on Google), and can not be shared independently of the entire document. Foxit and PDF-XChange are no better until you get to the paid versions. Even if we provide the ability to re-upload commented PDFs and link versioned documents (as in Nature Precedings pre-print archive), this loses a lot of the convenience from annotation.

−	* Perhaps trivial, but worth noting in light of the current demo (http://mdouglas.etcl.uvic.ca/ojs2/) that there's still no ~~consistent~~ interface for saving highlighted text. Javascript buttons for different colors aren't entirely intuitive -- highlighting text simply doesn't feel like a weighty act. jQuery implementation for interacting directly with the text (e.g. the "speech bubble" interface discussed above) is probably ideal.	+	* Perhaps trivial, but worth noting in light of the current demo (http://mdouglas.etcl.uvic.ca/ojs2/) that there's still no well-established interface for saving highlighted text. Javascript buttons for different colors aren't entirely intuitive -- highlighting text simply doesn't feel like a weighty act. jQuery implementation for interacting directly with the text (e.g. the "speech bubble" interface discussed above) is probably ideal.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 == Research networks ==
-Scientists don't seem to be using social networks for research purposes (see http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/19/scientists-still-not-joining-social-networks/), and the market for such networks remains flooded.
+Scientists don't seem to be using social networks for research purposes (see http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/19/scientists-still-not-joining-social-networks/), and the market for such tools remains flooded.
 * In the interest of not taking on an additional hosting burden for PKP (is a common theme emerging yet?) and not providing even more competing alternatives to what already exists, I'd advocate for looking into the available Zotero/Mendeley API for automatic ingestion of research networks data. Might be worth establishing a working relationship with Zotero development (afaik, PKP has support for COinS, but that's all), although worth noting that I strongly prefer working with Mendeley (not open-source) for the interface alone.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 17 June 2010
Line 32:		Line 32:

	* Perhaps trivial, but worth noting in light of the current demo (http://mdouglas.etcl.uvic.ca/ojs2/) that there's still no consistent interface for saving highlighted text. Javascript buttons for different colors aren't entirely intuitive -- highlighting text simply doesn't feel like a weighty act. jQuery implementation for interacting directly with the text (e.g. the "speech bubble" interface discussed above) is probably ideal.		* Perhaps trivial, but worth noting in light of the current demo (http://mdouglas.etcl.uvic.ca/ojs2/) that there's still no consistent interface for saving highlighted text. Javascript buttons for different colors aren't entirely intuitive -- highlighting text simply doesn't feel like a weighty act. jQuery implementation for interacting directly with the text (e.g. the "speech bubble" interface discussed above) is probably ideal.
		+
		+
		+	== Research networks ==
		+
		+	Scientists don't seem to be using social networks for research purposes (see http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/10/19/scientists-still-not-joining-social-networks/), and the market for such networks remains flooded.
		+
		+	* In the interest of not taking on an additional hosting burden for PKP (is a common theme emerging yet?) and not providing even more competing alternatives to what already exists, I'd advocate for looking into the available Zotero/Mendeley API for automatic ingestion of research networks data. Might be worth establishing a working relationship with Zotero development (afaik, PKP has support for COinS, but that's all), although worth noting that I strongly prefer working with Mendeley (not open-source) for the interface alone.
		+

	== Automatic linking and indexing ==		== Automatic linking and indexing ==