![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslHere is a list of vows I would encourage academics and scientists to take. Feel free to modify and adapt them to your needs. As I've stated them, they can be arbitrarily burdensome. So: be reasonable! The point of publishing one's values is to enable others to remind you when you fall off the horse. So you can add and retract them as you please.
One can distinguish between writing that is meant to introduce novel results and ideas, and writing that is meant to educate readers about previously published ideas. In the latter, I would argue that crediting original results is less important, the purpose of the bibliography being to give useful pointers to the intended reader, rather than to give credit where it is due.
I have not taken these vows, at least not yet.
---
Ok.
I hereby take vows #1 (not including the random numbers clause), #2 (may sometimes need to compromise, due to space limitations) , #3 (when publishers and co-authors don't mind).
#4 may be too burdensome. I would love to take #5, but I wonder if it would be a good use of my time. I love formalizing other people's arguments; perhaps it's best left as an exercise to the reader.
---
I would like to start creating mashup papers. For this purpose, it would be useful if authors took Vow #3, and licensed their papers accordingly. Also, I would like to re-publish papers containing my annotations, especially my lambda-calculus annotations. (e.g. "more precisely, you're minimizing λx.KL(x,p)")
It would be great if I could see previous readers' annotations of a PDF, kinda like Gibeo does for web pages (they even have a friends-network, to help you filter out people who make undesirable annotations).
---
UPDATE: I just discovered Science Commons, but it seems to be more about knowledge management than about about copylefting scientific publications (which they call "Open Access"). The NeuroCommons is a Semantic-Sciencey project.
Vow #1: I will do my best to make my code and data available, so that my experiments are easily reproducible. (optional: I will also publish the seeds used in my random number generators)
Vow #2: In writings meant to expose novel results, I will do my best to credit the sources of all my ideas and results, regardless of where or whether they have been published.
Vow #3: I will do my best to explicitly publish my papers as free content (in the sense of libre), and I will encourage readers to annotate and republish them, as long as the original heading is left clear. (optional: I will publish my LaTeX source)
Vow #4: I will do my best to use standard and accessible language, so that as many people as possible outside my immediate specialty can come to understand my papers with reasonable effort.
Vow #5: I will do my best to structure and formalize my arguments, whether mathematical or not. (optional: using argument mapping; using lambda calculus)
One can distinguish between writing that is meant to introduce novel results and ideas, and writing that is meant to educate readers about previously published ideas. In the latter, I would argue that crediting original results is less important, the purpose of the bibliography being to give useful pointers to the intended reader, rather than to give credit where it is due.
I have not taken these vows, at least not yet.
---
Ok.
I hereby take vows #1 (not including the random numbers clause), #2 (may sometimes need to compromise, due to space limitations) , #3 (when publishers and co-authors don't mind).
#4 may be too burdensome. I would love to take #5, but I wonder if it would be a good use of my time. I love formalizing other people's arguments; perhaps it's best left as an exercise to the reader.
---
I would like to start creating mashup papers. For this purpose, it would be useful if authors took Vow #3, and licensed their papers accordingly. Also, I would like to re-publish papers containing my annotations, especially my lambda-calculus annotations. (e.g. "more precisely, you're minimizing λx.KL(x,p)")
It would be great if I could see previous readers' annotations of a PDF, kinda like Gibeo does for web pages (they even have a friends-network, to help you filter out people who make undesirable annotations).
---
UPDATE: I just discovered Science Commons, but it seems to be more about knowledge management than about about copylefting scientific publications (which they call "Open Access"). The NeuroCommons is a Semantic-Sciencey project.