User:Econterms/Lightning talk

= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes =
 * Prof. Yang tells us that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
 * Let's imagine a wiki platform that made the state of research in a science more clear.
 * Here's a feature it could have.

Examples:
 * On how much government debt stifles economic growth
 * Claim about immune response to HIV ; Later paper with different view


 * AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries. Our prototype is there.
 * See first two examples
 * Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B     (using Semantic MediaWiki)
 * note: the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth -- that a dispute exists


 * Similarly could incorporate other relations between scientific works: A cites B ; A is an important predecessor to B ; A and B use the same data set or the same clinical trial information ; A reproduced or could not reproduce result from B


 * Could scale this up with big lists of relevant papers and works from many places including PubMed, SSRN, and Wikidata
 * The list is not an innovation but the relations between the works can be useful if they are formalized a bit


 * Trees of relationships can then be made visible ; could give a picture of a dynamic literature across fields, journals, and languages
 * Could be useful for:
 * 1) students of this research  . . . and . ..
 * 2) researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?) . . . and . ..
 * 3) grant-givers (?)  . . . and . ..
 * 4) somebody with some other expertise (or technology or skill) that helps to address a particular issue
 * Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institutional barriers around it.
 * ===> A good site could save time for scientists and bring in more scientists ===> speed science along


 * Report on disputes between papers on this site
 * issue: who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes on such a wiki?   (to be worked out)

We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit could have that would help spark critical mass (fun, addictive?)

Sources:
 * developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
 * drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; many other sites