-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
Copy pathvision.html.en
executable file
·167 lines (139 loc) · 9.6 KB
/
vision.html.en
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>LangSci Press: Vision</title>
<!--#include virtual="langsci-header.html"-->
<h1>Vision</h1>
<p>
This page describes the plans that we have for 2014–2015. This page is an elaboration
of <a href="http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/oa-jlm.html">Müller, 2012</a>. For a more detailed description refer to the <a href="http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/lsp-dfg.html">grant proposal</a>.
<h2>New Possibilities</h2>
<p>
The new way of publishing opens up new possibilities for linguistics. For instance,
theoretical work can be separated into a descriptive part and the analysis. The content of a book
can be converted into a Wikipedia-like format and can be edited and improved by other
researchers. It is thus possible to continuously extend our knowledge about a particular
language. Books are snapshots of our knowledge at a given stage.
<p>
This new way of working allows researchers working in other frameworks to reuse the descriptive part
and add their own analysis part to it. We would this get theories that cover similar data and can be
compared. We thereby ensure that the field as such makes progress empirically and theoretically.
<p>
Digital publishing has certain advantages: The publications can be stored together with primary data
and software. The projects
of <a href="http://www.surf.nl/en/themas/openonderzoek/verrijktepublicaties/Pages/default.aspx">Enhanced
Digital Publication</a> show that there are entirely new possibilities. The
Enhanced Digital Science project looked at various disciplines, also including linguistics. One
project developed a dictionary for Berber that includes background information like pictures and
articles from the press. Other useful combination of sources can easily be imagined for linguistics.
For instance, one could connect a text to corpora and subcorpora that play a role in an analysis, one
could include <a href="rec2/rec2.html">interactive example trees</a> that can be manipulated and modified by the reader since they are
together with a piece of code that allows the folding and unfolding of the tree (click on the nodes in the <a href="rec2/rec2.html">example</a>). Usually fully worked out linguistic analyses are
highly complex. It is the task of the author to simplify the analysis and highlight the most
important aspects. However, in some situations the reader wants more or it is not obvious how
several partial descriptions in a paper have to be fused into a coherent picture. Having a tree that
contains all the details of an analysis but initially displays only the information that was marked as relevant
by the author is extremely useful here.
<h2><a name="formats">Formats</a></h2>
<p>
In order to provide fully searchable documents that are annotated for content, we have to provide
the documents in the XML format. This is also necessary for producing e-books. The conversion of
<span class="latex">L<sup>a</sup>T<sub>e</sub>X</span> to XML is not trivial, but we hope to solve this problem for standard packages (glossed
example sentences, trees, AVMs) in 2013–2014. The efforts will be coordinated at the FU
Berlin. If you want to help the developers team, please <a href="sign/">register as a developer</a>.
<h2><a name="community">Community Effort</a></h2>
<p>
We will start rather traditionally with OMP, that is, there will be series editors that determine
at least two reviewers per book manuscript. Once a manuscript is accepted it is sent to the
production stage with layout editing and proof reading. In the startup phase the German Grammar
Group of the FU will take care of layout and proof reading. However, within the following two years we
want to turn this into a community effort: OMP allows for the registration of reviewers and
proofreaders and we hope to be able to get a number of volunteers that is high enough to guarantee
short turnaround times. (<a href="sign/">Register as reviewer/proofreader</a> and see who else
volunteered to work as <a href="review.html">reviewer</a> or <a href="proofreader.html">Proof
Reader</a>). Other disciplines show us that this can work. The
journal <a href="http://www.qualitative-research.net/">Forum: Qualitative Social Research</a> has
17,000 registered readers and 900 reviewers. They use the Open Journal System, an open source workflow system
that was also developed by PKP for journals rather than monographs.
<h2>Open Reviewing (optional) and Versioning (optional)</h2>
<p>
It is often the case that comments of reviewers significantly improve books. Some reviewers invest a
lot of time in reviewing. We will follow a suggestion by Pullum
(<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4047489">1984, Volume 2</a>, p. 266) and publish
the names of the reviewers with the book, if reviewers want this (for incentives
see <a href="#gamification">gamification</a>). This approach is also taken by
the <a href="http://www.edition-open-access.de/">Edition Open Access</a> which is a book series run
by the Max Planck Research Library for the History and Development of Knowledge. As Pullum pointed
out in his column, standing in for a publication with one's reputation ensures that reviewers take
reviewing seriously. But with the new ways of publishing we can take Pullum's ideas even
further. We can build a web of trust. We can set up reviewing systems that keep the original
submission of accepted manuscripts around and add the reviews. This can be done even if reviewers decide to stay
anonymous. It is done successfully in other disciplines as for instance in Geoscience, Economy, and Biology
(<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2008-0567">Pöschl and Koop, 2008</a>) (see for instance the
journal of <a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net">Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</a>).
<p>
In addition to the two reviewers that are determined by the series editors the whole community is
free to comment on manuscripts. This will further improve the book.
<p>
The advantages of such an open review process and versioning are:
<ul>
<li>full transparency
<li>credit to the earliest published version of ideas
<li>higher quality of submitted manuscripts
<li>credit to the work of reviewers
</ul>
<h2><a name="gamification">Gamification</a></h2>
<p>
Open reviewing will be combined with aspects
of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification">gamification</a>. Websites that use
gamification give users points and awards for their activities. An example
is <a href="http://stackexchange.com/">stackexchange.com</a>. They have a list of rated questions
and answers and you get credits for asking and answering questions (<a href="http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/82693/url-field-inherited-despite-separate-cross-reference-item">example</a>). So you can see who is an
experienced user of this system. In addition to credits for your activity there are
certain <a href="http://tex.stackexchange.com/badges">badges</a> that are awarded to users for
reaching certain goals. For instance users get a badge for editing 500 posts. There are certain thresholds for user privileges that are assigned
automatically by the system.
<p>
In our system points will be awarded for
<ul>
<li>submitting manuscripts
<li>reviewing manuscripts (as a selected reviewer)
<li>reviewing manuscripts (as a community member)
<li>working in the advisory board
<li>working as a series editor
<li>proof reading
</ul>
While selected reviewers have to comment on the whole manuscript, community reviewers may comment on
parts. The community may vote reviews both by selected and by community reviewers up.
<p>
Bonus points will be given for:
<ul>
<li>submissions of manuscripts to the open review process
<li>speed of reviewing
<li>transparency (anonymous publication of the review)
<li>transparency (non-anonymous publication of the review)
</ul>
The gamification approach allows younger researchers to enter the game without being chosen as a
reviewer by some series editor. PhD students often know their field very well, sometimes better than
established researchers. An open reviewing system with community participation can activate additional
expertise and add to the reputation of younger scientists.
<p>
Of course the reviewing work that resulted in the rejection of manuscripts has to be credited without
revealing the identity of the reviewer. Anonymity is a problem in the beginning only. It can be
guaranteed by introducing delays for the respective gratification.
<p>
In the case of manuscripts of bad quality, that is, manuscripts that would require a lot of work on
the reviewer's side, it could be the case that nobody is willing to review the manuscript. This can
be either accepted by the author as a rejection or the author could increase the motivation for
reviewing by setting a
`<a href="http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/16065/how-does-the-bounty-system-work">bounty</a>'. Bounties
can be set on systems like stackexchange to increase the priority of a question. Those who answer
the question will get a bigger number of credit points and the person who asked the question has to
`pay' with some of his or her credit points. If the manuscript has some good ideas in it, reviewers
eventually will be willing to invest a lot of time in a manuscript. The extreme version of the
`bounty' idea is of course co-authorship.
<p>
We plan to extend OMP by this functionality. The efforts will be coordinated at the FU
Berlin. If you want to help the developers team, please <a href="sign/">register as a developer</a>.
<!--#include virtual="langsci-footer-1.html"-->
February, 11th, 2013<!--#include virtual="langsci-footer-2-counter.html"-->