Thank you for the efficient kick-off meeting on the white paper today. It was great to see so many of you being present.
You find the recording of the meeting on the link below:
Here are the slides I presented on the meeting:
We have set up a list of all email addresses, as we will send out most important information and invitations in email. Please enter your preferred email address if you would like to be notified:
I have pre-filled it with the contacts who registered to the event or showed interest. In case you have any remark or would like to volunteer to be responsible for any sections, please add.
Some of you have already contributed to the shared document. As discussed, the first week would be about having a solid list of sections and general content. You find the document here:
As discussed, this will be the preferred communication channel, please feel free to reply / comment in this topic.
Looking forward to working with you!
Andras
p.s. the links are meant for internal use, please do not share them with third party.
thanks for the information, and sorry I could not attend the initial call
I wanted to follow up on one of the questions asked (by Alexander I think), “what is the main difference in what we want to produce, compared to what already exists“
As someone new to thinking more broadly about open science, I’m not fully aware of the existing literature in this area, so it would be valuable to have more references describing (for example) what is the "previous” state of the art that we might begin our discussion on?
I see a few references already in the draft structure document, and I suspect ultimately the paper will have a good description of the current landscape along with references, but I would appreciate if people can suggest any specific work that kind of sets the starting point for what we want to do
Thanks @duncan for the thoughtful feedback. Actually, I was thinking about including a state-of-the-art section, where we could list and review the most important current corner stones. Feedback from many is / was that they are not even aware of what is out there, so there would be a definite usefulness in that.
I am hesitant because that chapter in itself could make an entire paper and I don’t want it to imbalance the content.
Thank you for all the effort you put into the document so far.
I have updated the content based on your proposed changes and comments. Resolved comments are still in the document as they might still be useful in the next stage. Please have a quick look again to check if there are no missing sections or important topics. I would fix the structure on the 10th (next Tuesday), and transit to the writing phase.
Some of you have indicated sections you would like to contribute to - you will have plenty of chance to do that. However, we are still waiting for applicants to be responsible for single sections. As responsible, you are not actually responsible to write all the content, but more curating the ideas and keep the content of the section consistent. If any of you would like to be responsible for any section, please let me know or simply add it as a remark in the list of participants.
Thank you again for all your contributions, I’m looking forward for the continuation!
Thank you for all the activity so far. Special thanks to those who have decided to take responsibility as section leads (see the table at the end of this email). There are still a few sections without a lead, for example Section 1 and Section 5 (co-lead), in case anyone would be interested.
Please note that although section leads have a good understanding of their sections, their role is not to draft the entire section themselves. Rather, the to curate the ideas and content, and ensure that the section remains consistent.
We have also received many valuable contributions to the structure. As discussed earlier, at this point we will freeze the structure and transit to the drafting phase. From now on, you can edit the document directly, but if you are unsure about the content you are adding, please feel free to use suggesting mode. Please keep the titles unchanged and avoid modifying the formatting (font, size, etc.). We will set these at the end to ensure a consistent layout.
As discussed, if possible please refrain from using AI-generated text. We would very much value your own expertise, perspective, and experience rather than generalized AI output.
As for the timing: we will allow two weeks for the drafting phase, if everything goes along the plan, we will move to the Cross-review phase after the 27th.
Dear All!
So we are off, time to write! Thanks for the engaging task!
As I wrote, I would still need to focus more on the detailed goal of the section 5.
I will try to write down how I see it so that we can discuss and clarify.
Roberto
