Synthesis Infrastructures - User contributions [en]

Social Systems

2022-11-12T15:21:11Z

Slickytail:

{{Group
|Decription=How to design/foster social structures / incentives / programs for fostering synthesis-friendly work, such as writing living literature reviews, adding metadata to experiments, etc.?
|Topics=Incentive Systems
|Discord Channel Name=#social-systems
|Discord Channel URL=https://discord.com/channels/1029514961782849607/1040386737836412928
|Facilitator=Sílvia Bessa
|Members=Angelina Lesnikova, Eirini Malliaraki, Martin Karlsson, Matt Clancy, Matthew Evans, Pao Siangliulue, Sílvia Bessa, Valerii Kremnev, Raphael Walker
|Buddies=Peer Review
}}
== What ==

How to design/foster social structures / incentives / programs for fostering synthesis-friendly work, such as writing living literature reviews, adding metadata to experiments, etc.?

== Resources ==

* [https://sourcecred.io/ SourceCred]
* Golden - [https://docs.golden.xyz/protocol/how-to-get-involved/reward-function-development Reward function development]
* [https://protocol.ai/blog/hypercert-new-primitive/ HyperCerts]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1soPQ31ZHkQ Impact Evaluators]
* [https://scienceplusplus.org/metascience/ An Engine of Improvement for the Social Processes of Science], by Nielsen and Qiu

== Potential Next Steps ==

[[Matt Clancy]]

* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FFdCnLEEeIzx91IMA7zg_K7rQztI4JtqTt7cKbu6YT0/edit?usp=sharing Atlas Academia : A proposal (CSCW version)]
* [https://newthingsunderthesun.com/, https://newthingsunderthesun.com/,]

[[Martin Karlsson]]

On "''organize thought and writing on a central theme/problem to facilitate future work''" track, if there is interest, I would be keen to bring together those that would like to map out:

# The structural options for rewarding contribution.
# Learnings from past and ongoing attempts (what truly motivates sustainable participation).
# New funding sources that could sustain those reward mechanisms.

Then map to the enabling effects of the tooling and model initiatives occurring across the workshop. One goal would be to connect the thread from these new funding sources and methods to the attribution and reward mechanisms offered by discourse graph and synthesis tooling.

== Relevant Messages ==

Raphael Walker

2022-11-12T15:20:27Z

Slickytail:

{{Participant
|Timezone=Europe/Paris (GMT+01:00/GMT+02:00)
|Homepage=raphaelwalker.com
|Affiliation=Invisible College
|Projects=PeeryView, Braid
|Interests=HCI, Machine Learning, Scientific Publishing
|Group=Social Systems
|Table Assignment=Table 4
|Github=slickytail
}}
{{Workshop Submission
|Interest=The Invisible College was started in the 1600s by Robert Boyle, of "Boyle's Law". The Academy in Boyle's day had become corrupt; depending on authorities (often the Church) to determine truth, rather than evidence and experiment. Scientists instead convened in the Invisible College to discuss empirical approaches to understanding the world. The College evolved into the Royal Society of London, which desired to publish its results more broadly, and invented the process of *Peer Review* to choose what to publish.

Peer Review has now become the authoritative game in Academia. We are part of a new Invisible College, convening in person and on the internet, to both do research, and create a new scientific dialogue, with new tools, to support our research. We have recently found ourselves developing a new system of Peer Review.

This new Peer Review is free of the constraints of paper. We no longer need a small group to choose up-front which papers others can read. Instead, the readers review the papers they read. To identify expertise, each reader also reviews the reviewers, defining which ones he trusts, which creates a web of scientific trust that can cover the globe. Furthermore, from the structure of this web emerges an incentive to detect, counteract, and penalize any attempts at gaming it. Try out prototype at https://peeryview.org

The new Peer Review will also allow authors to contribute to a web of discrete Points, rather than just Papers. An early prototype is available at https://braid.org/point
|Frame=Tool-builder
|Materials=Demos:
https://peeryview.org/about
https://braid.org/point

Slide presentations:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iyd4Kb3vjiNJgxr08avwNQFFnUbHzkJWGfFA8kDR18A/edit
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SRWbyA2uCnda1JwAZ3JiDKFt1-tWxyjK_FgqUSkBPjc/edit
|Organizer Topics=Review, Social Systems
}}

Raphael Walker

2022-11-04T14:35:27Z

Slickytail:

{{Participant
|Timezone=Europe/Paris (GMT+01:00/GMT+02:00)
|Homepage=raphaelwalker.com
|Affiliation=Invisible College
|Projects=PeeryView, Braid
|Interests=HCI, Machine Learning, Scientific Publishing
|Table Assignment=Table 4
|Github=slickytail
}}
{{Workshop Submission
|Interest=The Invisible College was started in the 1600s by Robert Boyle, of "Boyle's Law". The Academy in Boyle's day had become corrupt; depending on authorities (often the Church) to determine truth, rather than evidence and experiment. Scientists instead convened in the Invisible College to discuss empirical approaches to understanding the world. The College evolved into the Royal Society of London, which desired to publish its results more broadly, and invented the process of *Peer Review* to choose what to publish.

Peer Review has now become the authoritative game in Academia. We are part of a new Invisible College, convening in person and on the internet, to both do research, and create a new scientific dialogue, with new tools, to support our research. We have recently found ourselves developing a new system of Peer Review.

This new Peer Review is free of the constraints of paper. We no longer need a small group to choose up-front which papers others can read. Instead, the readers review the papers they read. To identify expertise, each reader also reviews the reviewers, defining which ones he trusts, which creates a web of scientific trust that can cover the globe. Furthermore, from the structure of this web emerges an incentive to detect, counteract, and penalize any attempts at gaming it. Try out prototype at https://peeryview.org

The new Peer Review will also allow authors to contribute to a web of discrete Points, rather than just Papers. An early prototype is available at https://braid.org/point
|Frame=Tool-builder
|Materials=Demos:
https://peeryview.org/about
https://braid.org/point

Slide presentations:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iyd4Kb3vjiNJgxr08avwNQFFnUbHzkJWGfFA8kDR18A/edit
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SRWbyA2uCnda1JwAZ3JiDKFt1-tWxyjK_FgqUSkBPjc/edit
|Organizer Topics=Review, Social Systems
}}

Raphael Walker

2022-11-04T14:35:05Z

Slickytail:

{{Participant
|Timezone=America/Los Angeles (GMT−08:00/GMT−07:00)
|Affiliation=Invisible College
|Projects=PeeryView, Braid
|Interests=HCI, Machine Learning, Scientific Publishing
|Table Assignment=Table 4
|Github=slickytail
}}
{{Workshop Submission
|Interest=The Invisible College was started in the 1600s by Robert Boyle, of "Boyle's Law". The Academy in Boyle's day had become corrupt; depending on authorities (often the Church) to determine truth, rather than evidence and experiment. Scientists instead convened in the Invisible College to discuss empirical approaches to understanding the world. The College evolved into the Royal Society of London, which desired to publish its results more broadly, and invented the process of *Peer Review* to choose what to publish.

Peer Review has now become the authoritative game in Academia. We are part of a new Invisible College, convening in person and on the internet, to both do research, and create a new scientific dialogue, with new tools, to support our research. We have recently found ourselves developing a new system of Peer Review.

This new Peer Review is free of the constraints of paper. We no longer need a small group to choose up-front which papers others can read. Instead, the readers review the papers they read. To identify expertise, each reader also reviews the reviewers, defining which ones he trusts, which creates a web of scientific trust that can cover the globe. Furthermore, from the structure of this web emerges an incentive to detect, counteract, and penalize any attempts at gaming it. Try out prototype at https://peeryview.org

The new Peer Review will also allow authors to contribute to a web of discrete Points, rather than just Papers. An early prototype is available at https://braid.org/point
|Frame=Tool-builder
|Materials=Demos:
https://peeryview.org/about
https://braid.org/point

Slide presentations:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iyd4Kb3vjiNJgxr08avwNQFFnUbHzkJWGfFA8kDR18A/edit
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SRWbyA2uCnda1JwAZ3JiDKFt1-tWxyjK_FgqUSkBPjc/edit
|Organizer Topics=Review, Social Systems
}}