Someone asked this question: “what problem are you trying to solve?” That’s not an easy question to answer without the appropriate context. The list of notes and references below all contain “pain points” or examples of organizations doing it better, improving how they communicate. Each one suggests, both individually and collectively, that we can communicate better, and I present them in no particular order.
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions
“The effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports” @TrevorABranch.
Google’s Machine Learning Journal
An innovative way to present information, to do it faster, to collaborate, to visualize…
Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted? “The problem is that your newspaper has an organizational architecture which is, to use the physicists’ phrase, a local optimum. Relatively small changes to that architecture – like firing your photographers – don’t make your situation better, they make it worse. So you’re stuck gazing over at TechCrunch, who is at an even better local optimum, a local optimum that could not have existed twenty years ago” (Michael Nielsen).
So when does academic publishing get disrupted?
“Academics are publishing to increasingly narrow audiences who will never read their material purely so that they can get the right credentials to keep their job” (Matthew Ingram).
On Demand – the idea inherent in Netflix, Uber, and even StitchFix and that publishing should be similarly responsive. Discussed here.
Reproducibility / Replication Crisis