Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RIO grant proposal publication #115

Open
rougier opened this issue Mar 11, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

RIO grant proposal publication #115

rougier opened this issue Mar 11, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@rougier
Copy link
Collaborator

rougier commented Mar 11, 2016

Should we got for it ? (see https://twitter.com/RIOJournal/status/703141211612155904)
I can try to write it based on the proposal (but I'm not familiar with the RIO journal).

@betatim
Copy link
Member

betatim commented Mar 11, 2016

What kind of benefits could we get from publishing this proposal?

(I am not familiar with RIO but presumably it will take some effort/time, so it isn't "free" so we should weigh pros and cons.)

@rougier
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rougier commented Mar 11, 2016

I tend to see this as an extra opportunity to make the project more visible and get new comments / ideas / contributions / feedbacks.

@rossmounce
Copy link

Pros:

  • Cost-free (in terms of $$$ money)
  • Arguably higher-visibility. The proposal will get indexed by Google Scholar and others. It will then pop-up in the search alerts of other academics.
  • Get a DOI for the proposal. DOI's aren't magic, but a lot of academics seem to think that an object is more 'citable' if it has a DOI. Mechanisms such as the CrossRef API arguably do make it easier to generate an appropriate reference, given a DOI.
  • Support a fellow well-meaning open science initiative (to formally publish research proposals and other non-traditional research outputs)
  • You'll get a machine-readable full-text JATS XML version of your proposal. In the long term we hope that PMC will index the journal and RIO outputs can add to the excellent PMC OA Subset.

Cons:

  • It will take additional time to enter it into Pensoft's ARPHA publishing system

See the ContentMine + Hypothes.is proposal for an example outcome: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e8424

COI disclaimer: I am one of the founding academic editors of the journal. Ask me anything if you have any questions. I won't interfere in this thread any further unless you ask me 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants