About me:
- I practice Open Science in the precise sense that one individually shares and acknowledges as much as possible of the whole research work (articles, software, data). This is an individual choice which can be achieved immediately, while any other so called "open..." proposals are at the institutional level and serve only to delay the change, to monetize, to keep the present corrupt publication and related academic management system alive.
- I explain why Open Science is something you should think about in this interview (archived version) where I'm kindly presented as "a researcher who started doing "open science" even before the term was actually coined".
- As an experiment, between 2015-2016 I tried to use social media for Open Science. It resulted in very high public exposure because it is both visually appealing and based on rigorous research. The deleted chemlambda collection is now online again here, enhanced. It contains now more than 250 animations obtained from simulations using the (lambdalife) official page for chemlambda, chemSKI, Interaction Combinators experiments. It was featured by Google and viewed more than 50 million times. The experiment was successful, I hope to replicate it at a larger scale.
- I signed individually the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), as well as The Cost of Knowledge
Validation vs peer-review:
- There is no rational doubt that it is technically possible to replace peer-review, which is a social form of validation, by a more rigorous version: give all to the reader, proofs, programs, data and let the reader form an opinion based on that. As an example is this very early experimental GitHub article which "runs in the browser" and comes with all means for validation: Molecular computers. That is why I believe(d, until it was bought) that GitHub answered, in principle, to the question: how will we collaborate, communicate, do research in the Net era?
More:
- I have a Habilitation à diriger des recherches en Sciences Mathématiques (download the thesis), (diploma scan), Université de Lille (USTL), France (2007). See also my ORCID ID (not much updated).
- If you care about which licence to use for your work, then CC BY 4.0 International is a good choice, because it forbids downstream restrictions on the dissemination of your work. Any licence which does the same is as good as this one. Truth is that licences become less important than DRM, which controls the ways the reader has access to the licensed work.