search

TheBeege / SciNet

The science publication platform
GNU General Public License v3.0
3 stars 0 forks source link

How do we identify replication studies? #7

Closed TheBeege closed 8 years ago

TheBeege commented 8 years ago

What is a reliable and trustworthy way to identify a study as a replication study? How does academia currently operate in this regard?

TheBeege commented 8 years ago

@anthonyselkowitz - Do we want to rely on authors to note their article as a replication? Or is there a better way?

anthonyselkowitz commented 8 years ago

That's a good way to do it as a start. It'd be how most journals do it already. They could also suggest tags/categories for their articles to go under, or choose from a list of tags based on overarching research areas such as Computer Science -> sub category AI -> sub category Planning AI and they would end up with the tag "Planning AI".

Having the author choose their own tags can result in some esoteric tags. For instance, in one of my studies we use the phrase "Agent Teaming". This phrase is something very novel and not found in other studies, though other things may use this tag in the future. So, bad for analytics and classification in the beginning, but may prove fruitful in the end. In my experience, the more tags the better. It allows for the article to be classified both generally and specifically. Though, this could be something that is user tested both live and through interviews.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:48 AM, TheBeege notifications@github.com wrote:

@anthonyselkowitz https://github.com/anthonyselkowitz - Do we want to rely on authors to note their article as a replication? Or is there a better way?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/TheBeege/SciNet/issues/7#issuecomment-234564367, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG18_B-6Tf8NSIs03GduNbzLpAID_dzlks5qYNhHgaJpZM4JN9zU .

Thanks, Anthony Selkowitz

TheBeege commented 8 years ago

I dig it. This makes complete sense to me. I like the idea of permitting open tagging while still suggesting existing tags. It also creates opportunities for meta-researchers, who may even contribute back to us :smile:

So I'll note this in the wiki. We'll rely on tags for identify articles as replication studies, and we'll rely on authors to tag stuff.

A part of me thinks maybe we should have some sort of upvote/downvote system for tags... or tag suggesting...? I worry about mislabeled articles. However, I'm also cool with addressing this after we already have something at least working.

DesireeVanHaute commented 8 years ago

I like the idea of voting for relevance of tags. I hate finding an article based on a key word when the paper is at best tangentially related to the field of choice.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:14 AM, TheBeege notifications@github.com wrote:

I dig it. This makes complete sense to me. I like the idea of permitting open tagging while still suggesting existing tags. It also creates opportunities for meta-researchers, who may even contribute back to us 😄

So I'll note this in the wiki. We'll rely on tags for identify articles as replication studies, and we'll rely on authors to tag stuff.

A part of me thinks maybe we should have some sort of upvote/downvote system for tags... or tag suggesting...? I worry about mislabeled articles. However, I'm also cool with addressing this after we already have something at least working.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.