Here are the first minutes for the scoping-review Discord chat held on 21-02-2022. I love doing minutes, since it helps me understanding what has been done and what should I do next. As @lwjohnst86 suggested, there is no need to have these for every Discord chat, since they are mostly informal, but I believe that today's chat had some nice things I would like to come back to.
After I joined here are some of the highlights:
1) @danielibsen suggested whether we should look for examples of best practices on open science and @lwjohnst86 commented that that could be a second project, following this one.
2) We discussed the objectives @lwjohnst86 wrote. From this I realized there are two sections: the introduction and the scoping-review itself. In the introduction we should discuss about the definition of science and maybe we should open an issue.
3) Shall we only include open science publications? We discussed about how hypocritical not doing so might be. @hchats pointed out that if we use it as filtering criteria, it is going to be reported in the methods and for me that is making a strong statement or a "declaration of intentions".
4) @hchats also commented about doing a pre-survey on what topics should we focus on in the scoping-review.
5) We still need to think about the best way of doing the reference list.
6) I was wondering what the best way of collaborating and knowing what to do in a non-hierarchical structure is. We discussed about it and I will add some ideas on some workflows in this issue: https://github.com/science-collective/scoping-review/issues/3.
I think that sums it up! Please add in the comments anything I might missed, misheard or if you want to discuss something about it!
Here are the first minutes for the scoping-review Discord chat held on 21-02-2022. I love doing minutes, since it helps me understanding what has been done and what should I do next. As @lwjohnst86 suggested, there is no need to have these for every Discord chat, since they are mostly informal, but I believe that today's chat had some nice things I would like to come back to.
After I joined here are some of the highlights:
1) @danielibsen suggested whether we should look for examples of best practices on open science and @lwjohnst86 commented that that could be a second project, following this one.
2) We discussed the objectives @lwjohnst86 wrote. From this I realized there are two sections: the introduction and the scoping-review itself. In the introduction we should discuss about the definition of science and maybe we should open an issue.
3) Shall we only include open science publications? We discussed about how hypocritical not doing so might be. @hchats pointed out that if we use it as filtering criteria, it is going to be reported in the methods and for me that is making a strong statement or a "declaration of intentions".
4) @hchats also commented about doing a pre-survey on what topics should we focus on in the scoping-review.
5) We still need to think about the best way of doing the reference list.
6) I was wondering what the best way of collaborating and knowing what to do in a non-hierarchical structure is. We discussed about it and I will add some ideas on some workflows in this issue: https://github.com/science-collective/scoping-review/issues/3.
I think that sums it up! Please add in the comments anything I might missed, misheard or if you want to discuss something about it!