How might we help improve and involve scholarly search engines for transparency, openness, and reproducibility?

[jhk11]

Confused? New to Github? Visit the GitHub help page on our site for more information!

At a glance

• Submission Name: How might we help improve and involve scholarly search engines for transparency, openness, and reproducibility?
• Contact Lead: [email protected]
• External Site Link (optional - primarily for projects): __
• Region: #Global
• Issue Area: #OpenAccess, #OpenResearch
• Issue Type: #Challenge

Description

Search engines have huge impact on what we find, read, and use for our work and have a huge potential for affecting the open science movement. What are some of the issues you would like to see addressed in the search engines you use for work? For example, google scholar doesn't show retractions, which I think can perpetuate negative stereotypes about science and irreproducibility.

What are we working on during the do-a-thon? What kinds of support do we need?

How can others contribute?

If you have ideas on which issues can be improved regarding your favorite search engines or strategies on how to implement them, please feel free to email me ([email protected]), see me in person at OpenCon Berlin 2017 (Nov. 10-13), or comment on this github page. We are meeting at the Planck Lobby, on the sofas near the windows and in front of the table with water bottles.

This post is part of the OpenCon 2017 Do-A-Thon. Not sure what's going on? Head here.

[livmar2000]

Hey, is this happening?

[jhk11]

I'm sorry. We are at the Planck lobby, in front of the table with water and near the windows.

[jhk11]

Hi Livia,

Thanks for your interest. I am sorry but we did not meet before lunch. If you are still interested, we are at the Planck lobby, in front of the table with water and near the windows. Our sign says "Google Scholar"

Bests,

John

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, livia [email protected] wrote:

Hey, is this happening?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_sparcopen_doathon_issues_39-23issuecomment-2D343885408&d=DwMCaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=uqkKmbKXV4e9hfwEWlh6SA&m=3Oyngt7sHvAg1h_VnbyFrSCrdyWTzic0l5pc9_ny76M&s=cMOngQtpo7L6FzmwNk8mj9Z4LZ7eaq4GYJOFr0wemzo&e=, or mute the thread https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AayVW5PKGNS91OuimBreUtzjYSNH5xkvks5s2CGMgaJpZM4QZsQN&d=DwMCaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=uqkKmbKXV4e9hfwEWlh6SA&m=3Oyngt7sHvAg1h_VnbyFrSCrdyWTzic0l5pc9_ny76M&s=aa1eC2DQ4C_ZMvYMtSSAmHsVZPrxBEPwq72X-BYi5R4&e= .

[jhk11]

I'm working on a rough outline of the background, goals, challenges, information we need.

In my opinion, the best approach to try to implement changes is to identify potentially friendly insiders and write a letter layout out our case for the changes we want to bring,