|
|
| (27 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Discussion==
| | [[Image:Biosysbio logo 2007.jpg|700px]] |
| ==Open review on-line, a new model in publishing conference abstracts.==
| |
| I wanted to start a discussion about whether OWW could be used for people to edit their abstracts that they submit to the conference [http://www.biosysbio.com BioSysBio & Young Bioinformaticians Forum] that I'm involved with (Manchester 2007). I anticipate if it were used then about 150 accounts would need to be created and abstracts could be submitted under a namespace like BioSysBio. It could work like this, we have a submission deadline, then an open review session using the wiki to communicate with people about their abstracts, then we have a second submission where delegates submit their final version. (this would then go on to be published, or a selection of the total). I think it would be great for people to submit an abstract and then for it to go through open review on OWW. It would be a test of a new model in publishing. It would also allow people to link to extra material, perhaps unlimited extra material. Whilst only the front page would be published, on-line would be a whole bunch of background on the topic.
| |
|
| |
|
| I think it would also be good exposure for OWW, as once people see how easy it is, they might move their lab page onto the site.
| | [http://www.biosysbio.com BioSysBio 2007] will be held at the Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre. It is aimed at students, post-docs and junior faculty working in biotechnology and all are welcome to attend. The conference will include sessions in Computational Systems Biology, Bioinformatics and Synthetic Biology. |
|
| |
|
| Please let me know what you think of the idea,
| | *[[BioSysBio:Conference Programme With Videos|Conference Programme With Videos]] |
| '''--[[User:Johncumbers|Johncumbers]] 01:34, 27 March 2006 (EST)'''
| | *Published abstracts will beadded here in March/April |
| | | *[[BioSysBio:abstracts | Submitted abstracts can be seen here.]] |
| *'''[[User:Skosuri|Sri Kosuri]] 17:46, 28 March 2006 (EST):''' Are people going to be willing to put there abstracts in for public viewing so far ahead of the meeting? Also, what about those abstracts that are rejected, are their abstracts still up for viewing? | | *[[BioSysBio:workshops | Workshops can be seen here.]] |
| | |
| '''--[[User:Johncumbers|Johncumbers]] 15:39, 3 April 2006 (EDT)''' yes, I was thinking about these issues too, the meeting is in Jan 07, the current date for abstract submission is Sep 06, but maybe with an open review period it could be closer to the date of the conference. A formal review would follow the open review period. All abstracts could be written individually e.g BioSysBio07:abstracts/cumbers07 and then accepted ones could be linked from a main page. In theory, with open review, more abstracts would be accepted (at least for posters)
| |
| *'''[[User:Jameswasmuth|jamesW]] 11:51, 17 April 2006 (EDT)''':So this type of thing is being done at [http://www.biology-direct.com Biology Direct]. I'm not sure its entirely appropriate for a conference - two rounds of peer-review that is. I like the idea of reviewers comments being available for abstracts accepted for presentation; it'll <I>encourage</I> the presenters to take the comments on board when preparing their talks. I'm not sure it is necessary for those accepted as posters - are any abstracts rejected for posters? Probably not, so, there may be some negative comments that are probably best not shared (in fact usually these aren't given to the authors!). Finally remember that talk abstracts are generally short so there's not an awful lot to comment on. What would be more fun is comments posted after the talks... | |
| | |
| *'''--[[User:Johncumbers|Johncumbers]] 07:43, 12 May 2006 (EDT)''' If we published in BMC Bioinformatics again then we could take advantage of the long abstracts e.g http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/7?issue=S1, which would give more to comment on. The idea of open review before hand would try and create a conference community before the actual conference, increasing collaboration at the conference perhaps?
| |
