Knowledge Freedom in Computational Science: A Two Stage Peer-Review Process with KF Eligibility Access Review. de Rigo , D. Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment, November, 2013. doi abstract bibtex Wide scale transdisciplinary modelling (WSTM) growingly demands a focus on reproducible research and scientific knowledge freedom. Data and software freedom are essential aspects of knowledge freedom in computational science. Therefore, ideally published articles should also provide the readers with the data and source code of the described mathematical modelling. To maximise transparency, replicability, reproducibility and reusability, published data should be made available as open data while source code should be made available as free software. Here, a two-stage peer review process is described in which scientific knowledge freedom is considered with a dedicated Eligibility Access Review. This new peer review process is applied by Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment with a focus on WSTM for environment. The two-stage peer review process requires discussion papers to be published so as to receive feedback from the scientific community before their possible finalisation. Initial manuscript submission is subject to soundness review, also ensuring eligibility criteria to be fulfilled so as to support scientific knowledge freedom. Although this concept is multifaceted, some few dimensions might be emphasised which broadly apply in computational science and engineering (CSE). [Eligibility criteria] Among the many possible eligibility criteria in CSE, it should be highlighted at least the need for: [::] free software to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] appropriate licensing and source code review to have been done; [::] free data to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] a minimal share of free-access references to be selected in order for scientists and research organisations not to be discriminated on the basis of their funding availability. [Peer review process] The discussion stage of the peer review process allows short comments to be submitted by referees and the scientific community, while authors are encouraged to interact with pending comments by providing their responses. During this stage, the discussion paper is already citable. The second stage of peer review begins with the submission of a revised manuscript, with final review and corrections. Fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is required over all the publication stages.
@book{derigoKnowledgeFreedomComputational2013,
title = {Knowledge {{Freedom}} in Computational Science: A Two Stage Peer-Review Process with {{KF}} Eligibility Access Review},
author = {{de Rigo}, Daniele},
year = {2013},
month = nov,
publisher = {{Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment}},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.7578},
abstract = {Wide scale transdisciplinary modelling (WSTM) growingly demands a focus on reproducible research and scientific knowledge freedom. Data and software freedom are essential aspects of knowledge freedom in computational science. Therefore, ideally published articles should also provide the readers with the data and source code of the described mathematical modelling. To maximise transparency, replicability, reproducibility and reusability, published data should be made available as open data while source code should be made available as free software. Here, a two-stage peer review process is described in which scientific knowledge freedom is considered with a dedicated Eligibility Access Review. This new peer review process is applied by Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment with a focus on WSTM for environment.
The two-stage peer review process requires discussion papers to be published so as to receive feedback from the scientific community before their possible finalisation. Initial manuscript submission is subject to soundness review, also ensuring eligibility criteria to be fulfilled so as to support scientific knowledge freedom. Although this concept is multifaceted, some few dimensions might be emphasised which broadly apply in computational science and engineering (CSE).
[Eligibility criteria] Among the many possible eligibility criteria in CSE, it should be highlighted at least the need for:
[::] free software to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] appropriate licensing and source code review to have been done; [::] free data to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] a minimal share of free-access references to be selected in order for scientists and research organisations not to be discriminated on the basis of their funding availability.
[Peer review process]
The discussion stage of the peer review process allows short comments to be submitted by referees and the scientific community, while authors are encouraged to interact with pending comments by providing their responses. During this stage, the discussion paper is already citable. The second stage of peer review begins with the submission of a revised manuscript, with final review and corrections. Fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is required over all the publication stages.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13441769,~to-add-doi-URL,computational-science,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,knowledge-freedom,open-access,open-data,open-science,peer-review,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication},
lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13441769}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"5rdZ6kmFSGch8wgyf","bibbaseid":"derigo-knowledgefreedomincomputationalscienceatwostagepeerreviewprocesswithkfeligibilityaccessreview-2013","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-02-08T11:03:23.547Z","title":"Knowledge Freedom in Computational Science: A Two Stage Peer-Review Process with KF Eligibility Access Review","author_short":["de Rigo , D."],"year":2013,"bibtype":"book","biburl":"https://sharefast.me/php/download.php?id=zOUKvA&token=29","bibdata":{"bibtype":"book","type":"book","title":"Knowledge Freedom in Computational Science: A Two Stage Peer-Review Process with KF Eligibility Access Review","author":[{"propositions":["de Rigo"],"lastnames":[],"firstnames":["Daniele"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2013","month":"November","publisher":"Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.7578","abstract":"Wide scale transdisciplinary modelling (WSTM) growingly demands a focus on reproducible research and scientific knowledge freedom. Data and software freedom are essential aspects of knowledge freedom in computational science. Therefore, ideally published articles should also provide the readers with the data and source code of the described mathematical modelling. To maximise transparency, replicability, reproducibility and reusability, published data should be made available as open data while source code should be made available as free software. Here, a two-stage peer review process is described in which scientific knowledge freedom is considered with a dedicated Eligibility Access Review. This new peer review process is applied by Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment with a focus on WSTM for environment. The two-stage peer review process requires discussion papers to be published so as to receive feedback from the scientific community before their possible finalisation. Initial manuscript submission is subject to soundness review, also ensuring eligibility criteria to be fulfilled so as to support scientific knowledge freedom. Although this concept is multifaceted, some few dimensions might be emphasised which broadly apply in computational science and engineering (CSE). [Eligibility criteria] Among the many possible eligibility criteria in CSE, it should be highlighted at least the need for: [::] free software to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] appropriate licensing and source code review to have been done; [::] free data to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] a minimal share of free-access references to be selected in order for scientists and research organisations not to be discriminated on the basis of their funding availability. [Peer review process] The discussion stage of the peer review process allows short comments to be submitted by referees and the scientific community, while authors are encouraged to interact with pending comments by providing their responses. During this stage, the discussion paper is already citable. The second stage of peer review begins with the submission of a revised manuscript, with final review and corrections. Fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is required over all the publication stages.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13441769,~to-add-doi-URL,computational-science,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,knowledge-freedom,open-access,open-data,open-science,peer-review,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication","lccn":"INRMM-MiD:c-13441769","bibtex":"@book{derigoKnowledgeFreedomComputational2013,\n title = {Knowledge {{Freedom}} in Computational Science: A Two Stage Peer-Review Process with {{KF}} Eligibility Access Review},\n author = {{de Rigo}, Daniele},\n year = {2013},\n month = nov,\n publisher = {{Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment}},\n doi = {10.5281/zenodo.7578},\n abstract = {Wide scale transdisciplinary modelling (WSTM) growingly demands a focus on reproducible research and scientific knowledge freedom. Data and software freedom are essential aspects of knowledge freedom in computational science. Therefore, ideally published articles should also provide the readers with the data and source code of the described mathematical modelling. To maximise transparency, replicability, reproducibility and reusability, published data should be made available as open data while source code should be made available as free software. Here, a two-stage peer review process is described in which scientific knowledge freedom is considered with a dedicated Eligibility Access Review. This new peer review process is applied by Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment with a focus on WSTM for environment.\n\nThe two-stage peer review process requires discussion papers to be published so as to receive feedback from the scientific community before their possible finalisation. Initial manuscript submission is subject to soundness review, also ensuring eligibility criteria to be fulfilled so as to support scientific knowledge freedom. Although this concept is multifaceted, some few dimensions might be emphasised which broadly apply in computational science and engineering (CSE). \n\n[Eligibility criteria] Among the many possible eligibility criteria in CSE, it should be highlighted at least the need for: \n\n[::] free software to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] appropriate licensing and source code review to have been done; [::] free data to have been published so as for it to be persistently available; [::] a minimal share of free-access references to be selected in order for scientists and research organisations not to be discriminated on the basis of their funding availability.\n\n[Peer review process] \n\nThe discussion stage of the peer review process allows short comments to be submitted by referees and the scientific community, while authors are encouraged to interact with pending comments by providing their responses. During this stage, the discussion paper is already citable. The second stage of peer review begins with the submission of a revised manuscript, with final review and corrections. Fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is required over all the publication stages.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13441769,~to-add-doi-URL,computational-science,free-scientific-knowledge,free-scientific-software,free-software,knowledge-freedom,open-access,open-data,open-science,peer-review,reproducible-research,science-ethics,scientific-communication},\n lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-13441769}\n}\n\n","author_short":["de Rigo , D."],"key":"derigoKnowledgeFreedomComputational2013","id":"derigoKnowledgeFreedomComputational2013","bibbaseid":"derigo-knowledgefreedomincomputationalscienceatwostagepeerreviewprocesswithkfeligibilityaccessreview-2013","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13441769","~to-add-doi-URL","computational-science","free-scientific-knowledge","free-scientific-software","free-software","knowledge-freedom","open-access","open-data","open-science","peer-review","reproducible-research","science-ethics","scientific-communication"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["knowledge","freedom","computational","science","two","stage","peer","review","process","eligibility","access","review","de rigo "],"keywords":["computational-science","free-scientific-knowledge","free-scientific-software","free-software","knowledge-freedom","open-access","open-data","open-science","peer-review","reproducible-research","science-ethics","scientific-communication","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13441769","~to-add-doi-url"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["5S2zj2hKW8TWTkuMq"]}