“The objective of Rescognito is not to “disrupt” or to “dis-intermediate”, but to work with existing scholarly societies and other participants, keeping them at the heart of research evaluation and reputation management. Rescognito does not store content, it is not a social network nor workflow system; it is just a thin layer exclusively focused on recognition of a wide variety of research contributions.
Using our platform, recognition is attributed using a counter called a “COG” (short for ReCOGnition) and the ORCID iD of the person granting the recognition. By themselves COG totals are a relatively superficial metric; but because they are open, transparent and attributable, we anticipate that layers of analytics, visualization and possibly AI will provide valuable insights into research trends and people.
We use the CRediT taxonomy, supplemented with a continuously-evolving list of home-grown recognition reasons (feedback welcome!) useful for recognizing non-article-based contributions and non-science works in the humanities and arts….
Thanks to ORCID our system can reliably identify research professionals (for example, the aforementioned Stephen Curry, along with his works: https://rescognito.com/0000-0002-0552-8870)….
Rescognito also allows self-recognition as a way to claim/assign CRediT for a previously published work (for example, https://rescognito.com/0000-0002-0673-1360)….”
“Getting scooped by a competing researcher is one of a scientist’s biggest fears. And some of the most important discoveries in medical history have been tainted by competitive controversy.
Back in 1952, before he co-discovered the structure of DNA, James Watson got access to Rosalind Franklin’s revolutionary X-ray image of DNA without her knowledge.
That image, known as Photo 51, was a major clue that helped Watson and Francis Crick complete their Nobel Prize-winning discovery. The lack of credit given to Franklin remains a stain on the story of their breakthrough.
But what if Franklin had been informally publishing her research notes all along?
“She would have gotten credit instantly for her contribution,” said Susan Lamb, a historian of medicine who holds the Hannah Chair in the History of Medicine at the University of Ottawa….”
“Much effort has gone towards crafting mandates and standards for researchers to share their data1–3. Considerably less time has been spent measuring just how valuable data sharing is, or recognizing the scientific contributions of the people responsible for those data sets. The impact of research continues to be measured by primary publications, rather than by subsequent uses of the data….
To incentivize the sharing of useful data, the scientific enterprise needs a well-defined system that links individuals with reuse of data sets they generate4….
A system in which researchers are regularly recognized for generating data that become useful to other researchers could transform how academic institutions evaluate faculty members’ contributions to science….”
“Ecologist Thomas Crowther knew that scientists had already collected a vast amount of field data on forests worldwide. But almost all of those data were sequestered in researchers’ notebooks or personal computers, making them unavailable to the wider scientific community. In 2012, Crowther, then a postdoctoral researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, began to e-mail and cold-call researchers to request their data. He started to assemble an inventory, now hosted by the Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative, an international research collaboration, that contains data on more than 1 million locations. Data are stored in CSV files (plain-text files that contain a list of data) on servers at Crowther’s present laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and on those of a collaborator at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana; he hopes to outsource database storage to a third-party organization with expertise in archiving and access.
After years of courting and cajoling, Crowther has persuaded about half of the data owners to make their data public. The other half, he laments, say that they support open data in principle, but have specific reasons for keeping their data sets private. Mainly, he explains, they want to use their data to conduct and publish their own studies.
Crowther’s database challenges reflect the current state of science: partly open, partly closed, and with unclear and inconsistent policies and expectations on data sharing that are still in flux….”
“In the PubSweet Community we are about contribution and reuse. Meanwhile, the CRediT taxonomy is all about transparently recognizing contributions to research. As such, we are pleased to announce that CRediT is implemented within CalTech’s Wormbase Micropublications platform, which is developed using PubSweet. This means that all other organizations within the community who are also building PubSweet platforms can leverage this modular component in their workflow. This is what we mean when we say that contributed components enrich the offering (and can speed development time) for all organizations joining and developing platforms subsequently….”
“I write to provide feedback in an individual capacity on the Plan S implementation guidelines. I am extremely supportive of the cOAlition’s goals and Plan S in general. I disagree with those who say that the timeline is too short; many of these actors have not taken the opportunities over the last decade to experiment with open access or new business models and have only begun dialogue under the threat of immediate action. That said, I welcome the recent engagement by the Wellcome Trust and UKRI to speak with Learned Societies and to evaluate routes to their transition to Plan S compliance. Developing alternative revenue streams to support the activities of these bodies is not a small task, but it is crucial for the wellbeing of these disciplines, and for open access to prosper. There are a few areas where the document could provide greater clarity….”
“Further to my other post earlier this week, I have added the additional points to my response letter to the Plan S implementation guidelines. These centre around monographs (9), REF involvement in Plan S (10), infrastructural support (11), the “time of publication” (12), clarification of the term “quality” (13), compliance of existing software with repository requirements (14), publisher deposition (15), and the ability to pursue defamation suits for wrongful attribution and reputational damage with the waiver of moral rights under CC BY 4.0 (16). If number 16 could be resolved, the open licensing landscape would be much clearer. The full letter is now available….”
“Despite Wikipedia’s importance as a resource for both practicing physicists and the wider community, it is rare for professional physicists to contribute, in part because there are few, if any, professional incentives to do so. We’re all in agreement that researchers should receive proper attribution for our work (which is why PLOS ONE supports ORCID); and as credit is not given for submitting or editing Wikipedia pages, only a small fraction of the physicists that I asked about this have edited even a single Wikipedia page.
With this in mind, we’re excited to introduce PLOS ONE Topic Pages, which are peer-reviewed review articles written with Wikipedia in mind. These provide opportunities for author attribution and will result in both journal articles and Wikipedia pages of high quality and utility….”
“So why am I so enthusiastic about Creative Commons if I don’t use licenses that contain any of their legal clauses? For starters, because I cheerfully acknowledge that while I’m over on the radical end of the free culture movement, that doesn’t mean the bulk of that movement isn’t also doing great work moving society away from the notion that “all rights reserved” is the only approach to consider.
But also, when they were designing licenses, they didn’t leave people like me out. In addition to their suite of various licenses, they also designed the CC0 waiver, a way of disclaiming copyright to the maximum extent possible in as many jurisdictions as possible, thereby effectively placing it into the public domain, where I want my content to go. I am very grateful for their work to make that an option for me, and for those who are on the fence, I can report from here that I have never suffered any deleterious outcome from having chosen this path over any of the “some rights reserved” alternatives….”
“ARTiFACTS provides a simple, user-friendly platform, purpose built for academic and scientific research that leverages blockchain technology. Researchers can record a permanent, valid, and immutable chain of records in real-time, from the earliest stages of research for all scientific and scholarly artifacts, including citing/attribution transactions….
By using the ARTiFACTS platform, researchers will be able to immutably prove ownership and existence of novel work, expand access to their scientific and academic research artifacts, provide and receive ‘real-time’ attribution for novel work and more comprehensively and rapidly build and demonstrate their body of scholarly contributions….
Establish proof-of-existence and confirm provenance at any time
Protect and manage IP while concurrently facilitating collaboration and knowledge sharing
Provide and receive valid, break-proof attribution and assignment of credit
Participate in growing a comprehensive, community archive for all scientific and scholarly artifacts….”