Dear Gabriele, dear all,

So you're ontologists. I suppose (hope) you enable researchers to produce their articles as semantic content. But I'm curious on how you enable fuzziness in knowledge production.

Would end point querying be available ?

I saw you put a F1000 reference in you email. I recall having worked on that during my thesis.

(french) "F1000Research publie sous licence CC-BY et requière des APC de 1000 USD HT pour des articles entre 2500 et 8000 mots. 1000 USD de plus sont exigés au delà de cette limite et il faut les contacter au delà de 15000 mots." (my thesis, git repos linked in signature)

Would you grant us the pleasure of showing us the 'business model' of QEIOS ? I'd like to understand how this young firm of yours as reached the "9M active researchers", "2.8M articles" and "1.5T expenditure" (and just for the record, 1.5T, a trillion and a half of what ? USD, £ ?)

M a mega, T a trillion, so should we guess for a F1000Research - like business model, with Author Publication Charges (APC) about around 500(monetary unit) / article ?

I let wikimedians do the math of their number of articles divided by their total charges (understanding the limits in comparing 1st source and encyclopedia production) to 'ponder' if F1000 and/or QEIOS rank as "predatory publication" according to "raw cost" of sustaining a massive publication structure. One should also take into account that many universities grant "server" space for their 'workers' as well as archives (for green OA as for grey production)...

You claim on your site that "Qeios can be read 100% free by anyone. There are no economic and technological barriers between knowledge and people with Internet access.", but that does not tell us how it is funded and about barriers in producing knowledge (not only reading others).

I still do not understand why researchers don't switch to wikimedian-like productions. Or more precisely, I understand and strongly disagree on why they continue feeding such a system of theirs. At least, I'd expect wide margins of our social group to "fork" production-review-dissemination systems (poorly funded universities or disciplines, strongly fundamentals 'math'-geeks, computer scientists working opensource-style etc.). I came to the conclusion (while reading Bourdieu) that "academia" knows its (social) reproduction patterns and quietly approve of it, and maintain it. I'm still waiting for the critical mass.

In case the list is interested, I developed a protocol in my final thesis chapter based on wikimedian space:

* descriptions in English (chinese and french) versions under common

* french project under wikiversité Journal Scientifique Libre

BR

Rudy, RP87

Cordialement
Rudy Patard

{{u|RP87}}

Coopérateur Optéos, commoner,

Développeur de techniques intermédiaires libres

& Chercheur in-terre-dépendant [hal] [youtube]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 15:23, Gabriele - Qeios <gm@qeios.com> wrote:

Dear Wikimedia OA list members,

I’m Gabriele Marinello, co-founder along with Giorgio Bedogni and Alberto Bedogni of Qeios (https://www.qeios.com/about). The reason I’m writing - to share with you what Qeios is about. Hopefully, you’ll find this interesting. It goes without saying, it’s about Open Science.

We are striving hard to finally give researchers power over the entire knowledge life-cycle: production, quality check and sharing. The overall result is not just immensely positive for all the stakeholders in the process, but also, and most of all, for the output - knowledge. Free, better and more comparable/reproducible knowledge.

In short.

We do are applying the power of the community review, as many now do (fortunately), but to be faaaar more effective, we are doing this at 2 different levels: the ingredients and the cake! The ingredients being the definitions of which an article, the cake, is made of. We firstly want the community to finally reach a consensus on what the best definitions to be used are when creating knowledge (a real “Definictionary” for researchers, so that they can all speak the same language!), and then let the same community openly review the output in terms of articles.

Just to make you a quick example of an “ingredient”: think about the definition of “Quality of Life” (QoL), essential metric when evaluating almost any medical treatment (what is medicine fighting for?); there are thousands of different definitions of QoL… and anyone is using the one which is best suited to his/her p-value… in short, anyone is speaking the language which can benefit most to him/her.

And a research article is made of hundreds of definitions… and for each there are dozens of variants... we can now easily understand how incomparable can be 2 articles that are trying to find an answer to the same question (e.g. what is the best treatment for Depression?), each being made of its unique mix of definitions... and it is precisely here that the indecision and inconclusiveness of the research arise: we are not able, in almost all cases, to say "treatment A is better than treatment B" simply because the 2 papers, the 2 studies, are not comparable!

Articles and definitions are composed and published directly on the platform (and Qeios editor is satisfying like never before ; )). This is the most suitable way to take advantage of the new object “definition” in producing the best possible knowledge: the rating system built on definitions allows in fact researchers the assisted-choice of the best ingredients to use when composing their articles... and if now anyone can easily recognise the best definitions, articles will be automatically composed more homogeneously, which means more comparable/reproducible research.

Researchers have the power, let’s use that power!

For those who are not familiar with the open post-publication peer review (i.e. community review), I wouldn’t be able to give a better insight into its value than Andrew Gelman here: https://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/01/peer-review-make-no-damn-sense/. To better understand what the guiding principles of the Qeios philosophy are, I would also suggest these articles by Jon Tennant et al. and Jason Priem: https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3 ; https://www.nature.com/articles/495437a.

In the words of Einstein: "Only the individual can think, and thereby create new values for society — nay, even set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms. Without creative, independently thinking and judging personalities the upward development of society is as unthinkable as the development of the individual personality without the nourishing soil of the community.” We defend the creativeness of the individual in the same way as we support the value that only the community can add.

If you are curious, you can find a video and more information here: https://www.qeios.com/about

If then you are interested, you can sign up using an invitation link, here is Giorgio’s: https://www.qeios.com/invitation-to-join/researcher/314

If you have any questions/doubts or feedback, feel free to drop me an email at gm@qeios.com or call me at +39 380 8912791.

Wishing you all a wonderful week,

Gabriele

—

Gabriele Marinello

Co-founder, Qeios Ltd

34, Old Barrack Yard, SW1X 7NP, London, UK
UK   +44 (0) 7426 853828
IT   +39 380 8912791
gm@qeios.com
www.qeios.com