INCF SIG on Open Publication

This SIG aims to develop a simpler, faster, transparent yet verified publication process based on up-to-date technologies. It will deal with issues such as pre-registration, open review, pre-prints, post-publication review; developing tools; discussing ethical/sociological and practical aspects.

Contact info

Email: tibor.auer@gmail.com

Team

Tibor Auer (Chair) Royal Holloway University of London, Department of Psychology, Egham, UK
Rogier Kievit (Deputy Chair) MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK
Nikolaus Kriegeskorte MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, UK
Christopher Chambers Cardiff University’s Brain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff, UK
Ben Tappin Royal Holloway University of London, Department of Psychology, Egham, UK
Jean Baptiste Poline University of California, Berkeley, US
Krzysztof Gorgolewski Stanford, US
Karl Helmer Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, US
Tom Nichols University of Warwick, UK
Camille Maumet University of Warwick, UK
Jessica A. Turner Psychology Department & Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, US
Satrajit S. Ghosh McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, US
Samir Das Montreal Neurological Institute, Canada
Tristan Glatard Montreal Neurological Institute, Canada

Description

About this SIG

The aim of the SIG is a simpler, faster, transparent yet verified publication process based on up-to- date technologies. Our scope covers manuscript preparation, dissemination, evaluation and digestion. Bringing these stages closer enhances interaction between authors, reviewers and readers to transform publication from paper-production into discussion.

First, we will consider existing solutions, such as pre-prints, pre-registration, open review, post-publication review, machine readable documents, etc. We compile a recommendation of best practices, which will be discussed with the wider community to consider ethical, social, as well as practical aspects.

The next step will be the production of a set of tools to integrate existing solutions and develop new ones based on a set of standards. Our longer-term vision is to have (partially) machine readable manuscripts and reviews, so that scientists can focus more on science and less on text editing and parsing.

We hope to rely on INCF to help involving of the community and perhaps encouraging publishers, as well. Finally, we also hope to harmonise efforts with other related INCF SIGs, especially “NIDM” and “Ethics of data reuse”; and with the OHBM’s Communications Committee.

Goals and outcomes

  • Practical recommendations and guidelines for open publishing; something similar to the COBIDAS report.
  • Standards for acknowledging reviewing thus making it more transparent and appealing.
  • Integrative tools/solutions. E.g. collaborative/interactive editing of manuscripts during review process; linking existing techniques/approaches (traceable/indexable annotations, comment, blogs).
  • Standards for open, more structured and (partially) machine readable publishing and reviewing; Developing tools to facilitate adoption of these standards.